Airport

<html><body>
Infrastructure redevelopment at Townsville Airport are underway, paving the way for a terminal upgrade to begin later this year.
The works involve an upgrade of the terminal roof, as well as water, fire and sewer upgrades which are required to address current capacity constraints and accommodate future growth.
Builder Lendlease is progressing with the roof works, while Townsville-based CES Civil has just been awarded the contract for water, fire and sewer upgrades, which will commence next month.
Townsville Airport Chief Operating Officer Kevin Gill said the upgrades were critical enabling works for the terminal redevelopment.
“We are pleased about moving forward with the core infrastructure works, as an important step in the overall redevelopment,” he said.
“This is a crucial project for Townsville Airport and for our community.”
Townsville Airport reached financial close on a $50 million loan from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund (NAIF) last December.
The water, fire and sewerage works include construction of a new sewer rising main, upgrades to existing pumps, new water mains, installation of an internal fire supply main and new fire tanks.
Infrastructure upgrade works are expected to be completed by the end of the year.
In addition to these works, a road project is underway which will streamline the entryway to the airport precinct by extending Meenan Street to meet John Melton Black Drive , creating a new direct, more appropriate and attractive entryway to the precinct for residents and visitors.
All together the roof, core infrastructure and road works represent a $9 million investment.
</body></html>

wdavis-8cCN98p7xp

Townsville Airport redevelopment underway

<html><body>
The Oaks, a former World War II airport 80 kilometres west of Sydney near Campbelltown, has been listed for sale for the first time in over four decades.
The 40.6 hectare property on Burragorang Road is a privately owned aerodrome which was originally built by the Royal Australian Air Force during World War II.
It's the only airport constructed during WWII to still be operational.
Today the airfield caters mostly to recreational aircraft and flight training.
Savills agents Tom and Nick Tuxworth, Nick Lower and Michael Fenton are marketing the heritage-listed site that is one of only four commercially licensed airports in the Sydney Basin.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/9/12/The%20Oaks%203.jpg" alt="">
“We are expecting a wide range of interest from local and offshore developers, land bankers, private high net worth families, aviation operators and logistics companies,’’ Tom Tuxworth said.
“100 acres of prime land in this location should be well suited to many astute buyers including Australia leading institutions," Tuxworth added.
“With alternate investments being looked at closely by many buyer groups on the back of a softening bond market and volatile stock exchange, we are excited to see the types of buyers investigate this opportunity further.
"When do buyers have the chance to purchase their own airport in Sydney? We are expecting strong engagement from all parties” Tuxworth noted.
The current owner purchased the airfield in 1975.
In late 1981, the owner acquired a Hawker-Siddeley HS.125 training jet from Qantas and transported it to the field.
The derelict jet (below) has since become a popular attraction with aviation enthusiasts and photographers.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/9/12/The%20Oaks.jpg" alt="">
 
The Oaks airfield was constructed in 1942 as a satellite field of <a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_Airport_(Sydney)" title="Camden Airport (Sydney)">Camden Airport</a>, at the time a major operational base and RAAF station.
The Oaks was built with a sealed 1,500 m runway and could function as a dispersal base to hide aircraft should the major bases in Sydney come under attack.
 The construction of Burragorang Road between the late 1940s and 1960 as the main access to Warragamba Dam cut across the original runway, and only the southern end of the site is still used for aviation purposes.
 
 
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

Buy your own airport: Savills list The Oaks Airport in NSW

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The stars aligned over Warwick Farm, New South Wales, this week. Sharing the stage at the Aerotropolis Investor Forum, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian and Liverpool City Mayor Wendy Waller were resolutely on the same script. For many Australians, including the prime minister himself, the fact that all levels of government are backing the Western Sydney airport project was remarkable. Yet bipartisan support is essential for such a project to succeed.
In a study released this week by the United States Studies Centre, we analysed the success factors of several US airport cities and found parallels that the Western Sydney development could draw on. We also identified policy settings that need to be resolved before the airport opens. That includes ensuring 24-hour operations, for a start.
What sort of development is this aerotropolis?
US geographic economist John D. Kasarda popularised the term aerotropolis to describe an integrated urban area around an airport – as opposed to the more usual ad hoc expansion of economic activity around airports.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Oy3OSm1w-jY?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
Kasarda’s Aerotropolis.
The state and federal governments have adopted the term to define their aspirations for the greenfield site at Badgerys Creek. It presents, as Berejiklian told the overseas investors and infrastructure companies, a “once in a century opportunity” to go far beyond an airport as merely a runway and associated infrastructure.
The NSW government’s vision is more akin to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in Texas, the assembled advisers and government agencies explained. However, for every successful aerotropolis – like the Zuidas economic zone that hugs Amsterdam Schiphol airport, or the Dulles Technology Corridor along the main road linking Virginia’s Dulles Airport and Washington DC – there are many grand airport terminals struggling to remain viable.
The risk is lower in Australia, partly because of our more modest tastes in infrastructure architecture.
Even so, any new airport is at risk of being underused. This is especially true in a city where a new airport is competing against an incumbent.
However, all layers of government, but particularly the state government, are determined to avoid the Western Sydney airport becoming a white elephant, not least because the ultimate aim is to sell it to a private operator.
The American example
The most striking observation that arose from our study is that the NSW government has no power to deliberately shift air traffic to the new airport. This was de rigueur in 1970s and 1980s America.
The rise of Dallas-Fort Worth is a prime example. Dallas’s downtown airport at Love Field was closed, as was Great Southwest Airport in Fort Worth. Their traffic was amalgamated at Dallas-Fort Worth by legislative instrument (although a court challenge by low-cost carrier Southwest Airlines resurrected Love Field as its headquarters). The result is a major airport surrounded by one of the most economically productive metropolitan regions in the world.
Similarly, in Washington DC, noise complaints about Washington National Airport (later named after former US president Ronald Reagan) prompted authorities to force intercontinental jets to the new Dulles International Airport. US defence manufacturers set up offices nearby; hotels and conference centres followed. The counties around Dulles are now home to the highest concentration of defence aerospace headquarters and employees on the planet.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221075/original/file-20180531-120499-eapx8h.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Economic impact of commercial airports in the United States. United States Studies Centre/CDM Smith and IMPLAN (July 2014)
The state of play in Australia
Most US airports are owned and operated by government, in contrast to Australia. Because Sydney Airport is a privately run enterprise with agreed (if contested) operating restrictions, imposing further restrictions would be politically and financially impossible. Shareholders would demand compensation for any loss of business.
The restrictions on Sydney Airport (including noise-sharing routes, movement caps, and an 11pm-to-6am curfew) are due to federal law, not local ordinances as in the United States. Regardless, the Commonwealth is unlikely to further restrict traffic at the airport, not least because its proximity to the CBD is attractive to corporate travellers.
Instead, the governments must work with the hand they have been dealt. The NSW government is pinning its hopes for the aerotropolis on sectors such as defence aerospace, air freight logistics, advanced health care, and food agtech.
In many of these areas, however, Australia lacks a track record. New industries can be created, but it will be a case of starting from a position of weakness, rather than strength.
Take defence aerospace: Australia is a buyer of defence materiel rather than a supplier. What defence expertise there is is divided between South Australia, Queensland and Victoria, as well as NSW. This does not rule out its development as a major employment sector, but the conditions will need to improve. The planned defence aerospace precinct will have to attract many more businesses besides the anchor tenant, Northrup Grumman.
This was the point of the investor forum. Eight ministers, state and federal, were on hand and many made themselves available for investors to ask questions. This level of access at a public forum is unusual in Australia, and underscored the governments’ serious intent.
So what more can governments do?
Some policy settings need to be resolved before the airport opens. Legislating for 24-hour operations is a straightforward, but not uncontentious, move. Unpicking some other regulations may be trickier.
Take, for example, air services agreements. These are international bilateral treaties that restrict the number of flights between two countries. Within the detail of these agreements is a description of cities as greater metropolitan entities that would, if not amended, lump Western Sydney Airport with Sydney Airport under the same cap.
For the new airport to compete for passenger traffic, every tool at its disposal needs to be used to lure airlines. Removal from the bilateral quota is one such tool the federal government can use.
Similarly, a greater ability to vary landing charges and air traffic management fees for smaller airports needs to be considered for both Western Sydney Airport and Avalon Airport in Geelong. Competitive pricing is needed to attract low-cost carriers.
More fundamentally, governments need to stick to the bipartisan path on the airport’s development that shadow infrastructure and transport minister Anthony Albanese persuaded the Labor Party to adopt in the early days of the Abbott government. As the politicians on the aerotropolis forum stage know all too well, grand projects have been scuppered in Australia by political infighting.
Justin Wastnage, Non-resident Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program Fellow, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/western-sydney-aerotropolis-wont-build-itself-a-lot-is-riding-on-what-governments-do-97462" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Western Sydney Aerotropolis won't build itself – a lot is riding on what governments do

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Public discussion of rail links to airports has been narrowly focused on the idea of a single line and where to run it. In Melbourne, the politics of this debate has so far prevented a railway from being built, because it is not possible for one line to meet all of the landside access needs of the airport. The issue of rail access for a new western Sydney airport has also not been resolved.
If we want anything to happen at all, we must move beyond barracking for one or other route. We have to recognise the need for multiple lines to serve everyone’s needs.
If we look further afield, of the world’s top 20 airports, 16 have rail access, 14 have integrated metros (i.e. part of the commuter rail network) and four have dedicated express lines as well as integrated metro lines (London Heathrow, Tokyo Haneda, Shanghai Pudong and Bangkok Suvarnabhumi).
In terms of passenger demand, Shanghai Pudong and Bangkok Suvarnabhumi were comparable in 2012 with where Melbourne will be in 2019. London and Bangkok have populations of around 8 million, have other airports and have much greater numbers of passengers transferring within them than Melbourne Airport, but the most salient comparison is the means of landslide access.
We’ll look more closely at Heathrow, one of the more comparable airports to Melbourne, later in this article.
The political divide on a rail link
The history of planning for a Melbourne Airport rail link has been dogged by party-political differences focused on the idea of a single railway and the question of its route out to Tullamarine. Traditionally, the Coalition parties have favoured the express proposals, while the Labor Party has preferred alignments that benefit local commuters.
This difference and the impossibility of resolving it with a single line would be one of the reasons we have so far not gone to the bother of actually building anything. It has also distracted attention from more incremental ways to improve landside access to the airport beyond the SkyBus. Its market is similar to the main targets of the express route proponents.
The most recent express proposal is the AirTrain by the highly respected Rail Futures Institute (RFI). It’s part of a bold plan to separate Victorian regional services from the metropolitan commuter network. This would eventually provide statewide fast rail services, including a 15-minute ride between the airport and Southern Cross Station in the city centre.
The benefits of and urgent need for RFI’s AirTrain proposal are clear. But it still won’t solve all of Melbourne Airport’s landside access demands, nor will it have the city-shaping potential in the northwest region between Tullamarine and the CBD that’s driving the ideas for an airport metro service.
Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull’s embrace of these ideas is a welcome change from his side of politics, as is Premier Daniel Andrews’ apparent support for RFI’s proposal. These are amusing reversals of political positions on airport access, but the community should not be swayed by the potential for wedging.
We can learn from Heathrow
To understand our predicament of airport access, comparisons with London’s Heathrow are useful. Many Australians know this airport and its landside access demands are far more similar to those of Melbourne Airport than may be imagined.
The Piccadilly Tube line was extended to Heathrow in 1977. That was a decade before it was serving over 30 million passengers comparable to what Melbourne airport was serving in 2013.
In 1998, Heathrow added a 15-minute express rail line to Paddington Station, when its landside access needs were about 40 million. That’s the demand Melbourne Airport is projected to hit in 2019. When London’s Elizabeth line (formerly CrossRail) opens next year, it will connect Heathrow to a major east-west line similar to the Melbourne Metro.
In 2028, Melbourne Airport is projected to hit the same level of landside access demand as Heathrow experienced in 2017. Currently, 40% of passengers using Heathrow do so via public transport – 27% via rail, 13% via bus or coach. And 35% of airport staff use public transport, and this is rising.
Heathrow has 13 public bus lines, 27 coach services and three railway services - the stopping-all-stations commuter service on the Piccadilly line and two levels of express service at premium ticket prices on regional railways (which will be subsumed by CrossRail).
By comparison, even though it is one of the world’s busiest, Melbourne Airport has a mere four public buses, some regional coaches and private express bus services. As a result, 86% of access is by car, including 17% by taxi or limo. SkyBus would take the lion’s share of the 14% bus/coach access.
What do these comparisons tell us?
These comparisons show how much more can be done to improve public transport access to Melbourne Airport, in the short, medium and long term. Melbourne Airport needs express as well as commuter rail access, but it needs more than this.
A wider spread of frequent public buses would be easy to implement. Extending the 59 tram service by 7km from Airport West would also be relatively quick and easy. Light rail lines to the airport from La Trobe University and Deer Park would provide much-needed connections to the main commuter rail system in parts of the metropolitan area where public transport is far worse than average.
A genuine commuter metro to the airport would not try to be an express. It would have stations that connect the major and emerging employment centres, such as Airport West, Essendon Fields, Niddrie, Highpoint, Footscray Hospital and Victoria University, and heavy rail stations at Arden and North Melbourne, before connecting with Southern Cross and then Bourke Street, Parliament Station and on to those eastern suburbs where metro services have long been planned.
Such a line would help with the redevelopment of Commonwealth land in Maribyrnong. In fact, without it, redevelopment would not be viable.
The politics of airport access need to be shifted away from focusing on whether one rail route is better than another to the need for a comprehensive transport plan integrated with land use that shows how we can shape our city and our state for a better future.
Ian Woodcock, Lecturer, School of Global, Urban &amp; Social Studies, RMIT University.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/melbourne-airport-is-going-to-be-as-busy-as-heathrow-so-why-the-argument-about-one-train-line-95289" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Melbourne Airport is going to be as busy as Heathrow, so why the argument about one train line?

<html><body>
A warehouse near Melbourne airport Tullamarine which will be used for airport parking has been leased on a five year lease term at $85,000 per annum.
The 507 sqm warehouse at <a href="https://www.realcommercial.com.au/property-industrial+warehouse-vic-tullamarine-502516550" target="_blank">36 Tullamarine Park Road</a> is located near the Western Ring Road with linkages to Tullamarine Freeway, Calder Highway and Melbourne Airport.
The warehouse that sits on a 2,800 sqm parcel has been leased to a local company.
It has front to rear drive through access, partitioned offices and two driveways.
CVA agents Anthony Carbone and Tom Gleeson negotiated the lease.
 
 
 
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
 
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

Warehouse for airport parking leased for $85,000 a year

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/80203/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Melburnians have been talking about a train to Tullamarine Airport since well before it opened. Now Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has made clear his enthusiasm for an airport rail line, with or without state government support.
But these conversations need to move beyond the question of getting travellers between their plane and their city hotel.
Beyond airport access, this proposal highlights the potential for rail projects to shape Melbourne and feed an integrated public transport system that could serve its growing population.
How railways shape our cities
Transport investment shapes cities, but different modes have diverse effects.
Freeways, tollways and arterial roads (used by cars, taxis, ride-sharing services and buses, as well as trucks) encourage cities to extend horizontally at low densities. Rail-based modes (trams, light rail and trains, both passenger and freight) encourage intensification of corridors and centres.
Melbourne has concentrated most of its post-war transport investment on road-based transport. It has done very little to extend the enormous rail-based legacy of trams and trains built during the first century of European settlement. This is despite transport plans that proposed doubling the tramway system in 1923, and adding several new railway lines – including to Doncaster, Rowville, and between Dandenong and Frankston.
Until 2015, the only major investment in suburban rail since the 1950s was the City Loop, which opened in 1981 after a decade of construction.
The City Loop’s clear legacy has been the transformation of Melbourne’s CBD into one of the highest-density mixed-use precincts in Australia. This has driven some of the fastest growth in residential population anywhere in the country.
The demonstrated desirability of apartment living in urban centres, driven by the accessibility delivered by metro-quality public transport, shows how investment in rail-based transport can reshape cities. While many have advocated this for decades, the precedents have primarily been European or North American.
Australians now have homegrown experience of what transit-oriented urbanism could mean. Sydney has many examples of substantial rail-based suburban intensification. Centres such as Chatswood, Bondi Junction, St Leonards, Strathfield and Wolli Creek (close to Sydney Airport) offer insight into opportunities for Melbourne and elsewhere.
Airport rail can give structure to city’s growing west
A 25-minute metro journey from Melbourne’s Southern Cross station to the airport via Maribyrnong would appear time-competitive with the profitable and popular SkyBus service.
However, unlike SkyBus, rail has the potential to fundamentally reshape Melbourne’s northwestern corridor.
A metro line to the airport east of the currently favoured Albion corridor could realise the considerable intensification potential of many sites along its route. This is no bad thing. Melbourne’s population is projected to rise to 8 million by 2051, with disproportionate growth in the western suburbs.
Although exact alignments are up for grabs, significant urban renewal potential exists at Flemington, Footscray, Highpoint, the former Maribyrnong Defence site, Essendon Fields, Airport West, Tullamarine, and at the airport itself.
By directly investing in rail infrastructure, the federal government would reap the benefits of the land it owns and unlock the potential of many other locations. This is what integrating public transport and land-use planning looks like. And the urban outcome is vastly different from the current paradigm of road-driven transport and land-use planning.
Realising the full potential of an integrated transport system
A rail link won’t provide for all of the access demands for travel to and from the airport.
For that to occur, a comprehensive multi-modal network solution that serves a much wider catchment is needed. There will always be people living beyond an easy stroll to a train station. Their needs can only be met by a radical rethink of Melbourne’s buses in addition to rail-based investment.
However, the latest proposal offers alternative ways to think about long-promised rail lines – such as Doncaster and Rowville – as part of a network, linking intensified suburban centres.
Some lines have the ability to do what Infrastructure Victoria has recommended to increase development densities in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs, using light rail. For example, connecting Doncaster to the suburbs to its south and east, as well as its west, will provide great potential for intensification.
For Rowville, a light rail to Gardenvale will provide better public transport integration while maximising intensification potential.
Other comparable cities are realising the most effective combinations of public transport and land-use investment with light rail. In Montreal, Canada, the Quebec Pension Fund is investing in 67 kilometres of driverless light rail. This will link the city’s airport with urban redevelopment zones and existing metro lines to create a city-wide multi-modal network.
In Melbourne, thinking about the city-shaping potential of rail-based transport should focus minds on the priority to plan and build Melbourne Metro 2. This would provide a tunnel between Clifton Hill and Newport, creating a cross-town metro from Wyndham Vale to Mernda via Fishermans Bend, which is currently bereft of quality public transport.
Melbourne Metro 2 would also improve the chances that Werribee East can realise its potential.
Turnbull is to be congratulated for his reported support for airport rail. But we should be wary of losing sight of the wood for the trees – or, more accurately, the network for the line.
Victoria urgently needs a transport plan premised on integrated public transport and land-use planning. Only then might it work toward a liveable city for 8 million people.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-woodcock-150260" target="_blank">Ian Woodcock</a> is Lecturer, School of Global, Urban &amp; Social Studies, RMIT University. 
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/iain-lawrie-387154" target="_blank">Iain Lawrie </a>is Sessional Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Melbourne.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Airport rail link can open up new possibilities for the rest of Melbourne

<html><body>
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s national operations headquarters at the Brisbane Airport has been bought by The Patella Group for $23 million in an off-market transaction.
The price reflects a market yield of nearly 8.3 percent, according to selling agents Colliers International.
It also acquired Aviation House in Canberra, which is also occupied by CASA, from Mirvac in 2016 for $68.1 million.
The PCA A-Grade building at Brisbane Airport is fully leased to CASA for another 2.5 years, with a further five-year option. It spans 4,675 sqm. 
The 12-14 The Circuit Brisbane Airport is situated within the Skygate precinct - a retail precinct brimming with fashion, food and leisure.
In all, it has more than 160 retail stores, cafés and diners including DFO, Woolworths, Golf Central BNE, Dan Murphy’s, a 4.5 star hotel, medical centre and childcare.
The building was developed in 2007, and comprises four levels of office space, a ground-level foyer, and basement parking.  
The base building currently has a 5.0 star NABERS Energy rating.
Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Limited purchased Brisbane Airport from the federal government in 1997 under a 50-year lease with an option to renew for a further 49 years. BAC retains ownership and control of the airport in its entirety for the duration of the lease term up to 2096.  
It will invest $3.8 billion in projects over the next decade including the New Parallel Runway, new car parks and access facilities, terminal expansions, road upgrades, and new aprons and aeronautical facilities.
The sale was negotiated by Colliers on behalf of Garda Diversified Property Fund. 
Tom Barr of Colliers International said there was strong interest from institutions, privates, and syndicators.
“Buyers were attracted to high tenant retention probability due to the “stickiness” of the tenant to the location and building. The rapid growth of the Brisbane Airport precinct underpinned by nearly $4 billion of planned infrastructure investment over the next decade, was also very appealing to buyers” he said.
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Civil Aviation Safety Authority Brisbane headquarters sell for $23 million

<html><body>
Land valuers from valuation firm Herron Todd White say the second airport for Sydney at Badgerys Creek has been like winning the lottery for those who bought a small block of land.
"It used to just be called poor man's acreage – greyhound trainers and and truck drivers – but really it's been their lottery win," Herron Todd White's Kim Quick was cited as saying by The Australian Financial Review.
According to an estimate by her colleague, Haden Nolan, land prices have easily doubled since the then Abbott government confirmed the location three years ago.
"As soon as that came out the phones started ringing," Nolan said.
"A five acre (two-hectare) holding with a house and shed would have sold for about $1 million in 2014 and I just did a valuation this morning on a place like that and there is nothing under $2 million for that now. Most of those places are now worth $2.5 million.
One smaller land owner about 5 kilometres from where the airport will be, Jason Kennett, is another supporter of the airport but he thinks values are already priced in.
"I don't think you will see any more value unless all the infrastructure comes in," Kennett said. "We do want to realise the value so we would look to develop the land or sell it."
The federal government  recently said it will build Sydney’s second airport after the Sydney Airport Group, which owns the Kingsford Smith airport, pulled out of the project, citing "risks" on monetary return for its investors.
But not everyone is happy with the news of the second airport. Valuers say the expectation of planes flying overhead have made some move further west.
Jackie Kelly, the former Liberal MP, who held the seat of Lindsay for a decade, which covers parts of Badgerys Creek, is irate that the government is paying.
"The government is going to fund this whole thing. I think taxpayers should be screaming their heads off," Kelly was quoted by the AFR as saying.
Another charged question is who will pay for the infrastructure charges and who might get taxed on the increase in value of the land because of the new infrastructure – a concept known as value capture?
The government will unveil the details of the plan in the federal budget.
UDIA national president and member of the federal government's Cities Reference Group Michael Corcoran said the federal government's decision was excellent news because it offered certainty for people to invest. However, he said if the government started taxing property owners and developers it would have negative consequences.
"If the federal and NSW governments think that value capture taxes on new housing can fund a large portion of the cost of the new airport and related infrastructure they are dreaming," Corcoran said.
"Sydney housing is suffering an affordability crisis driven by a lack of supply and taxes that equate to 30 to 40 per cent of the cost of a new home. New home buyers are at breaking point.
"The new airport and related infrastructure will bring benefits to all of Sydney, NSW and Australia and cannot be used as a pot of tax gold, levied only on new home buyers and employers in western Sydney. More levies and charges on this new city will undermine its viability from day one."
Former Labor heavyweight and former secretary of the NSW Labor Council Michael Easson, who is executive chairman of property investor EG Funds Management, was also overwhelmingly supportive of the airport but questioned the opportunity for private investment and said further work needed to be done to make sure growth in real estate and the local economy was achieved.
"I have seen estimates of property values doubling and tripling in the decades ahead," he said, "although it might seem obvious that property values will go up with new infrastructure, nothing is entirely guaranteed".
"The full realisation will take 30 years or more," Easson said. 
"There are many stages ahead, each with the potential to add value to the built environment, the aesthetics of the urban habitat and property values.
He said public-private partnerships were needed, including good opportunities for super funds to invest – and quality architecture, resourceful thinking to make this transformation.
"Obviously this needs to be bi-partisan and it looks like everyone supports the critical infrastructure. But we need the best minds in the country – and beyond – to make Badgerys Creek one of the best places to live in Australia," Easson said.
Mark Perich has lived his entire life over the road from where the federal government has declared it will go it alone and build the new multi-billion dollar Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek.
Perich, who operates dairy company Leppington Pastoral, is one of the big winners from the plan, with about 2000 hectares of farmland in the area that could one day have thousands of houses on it.
"There have been others who have invested in the area over the last five years on the expectation the airport would go ahead and they have benefited from an increase in land values," he said.
"I don't know how much more it's going to go up."
</body></html>

Badgerys Creek airport a boon for local land owners 

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/73682/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
While Melburnians sombrely reflect on the risks of intensive commercial development near airport runways, Sydneysiders are enthusiastically scoping the development spin-offs that will come with their new airportin the city’s west.
Critical uncertainties still cloud this prospect. Will Sydney Airport Group take up its extraordinary “first right of refusal” option? The enticing early prospect of securing a virtual monopoly on Sydney’s airspace is now clouded by the reality of huge upfront development costs before any planes land or take off for the first time in the mid-2020s. 
If Sydney Airport Group pulls out, what happens next? Will the opportunity be opened up to other development companies? Or will the government commit more public money to doing the job itself and then on-selling the airport to the private sector?
Will there be rail access from day one, as seems utterly critical to its early success? If so, which option will be preferred – a very fast train or an ambling suburban service? This is the subject of a major transport study with a further dilemma looming: who will build and pay for it?
What type of airport will it be? Current thinking is to have it quickly assume the scale of the current Gold Coast or Adelaide airports with 6-7 million passengers per year. 
But who will fly here? Will it be a hub airport for a major airline/s? Will it have direct international services? Will it specialise in freight services? 
A great many considerations affect the “business case” for the new airport. 
<h2>A bustling ‘third city’?</h2>
Even larger questions relate to co-ordinated land use development around the airport. This is recognised as important, with the New South Wales government delineating an extensive “priority growth area”. The Greater Sydney Commission chaired by Lucy Turnbull envisages a whole new western urban complex around the airport – the so-called “third city” after Eastern Sydney and Parramatta. 
The organising device for making sense of this so far is the “aerotropolis”. This is a model for orderly airport-centric large-scale metropolitan development. It’s exemplified by Dallas Fort Worth, Singapore and Hong Kong. The core is a bustling airport city at the epicentre of road and rail networks knitting together a bustling job-rich region. 
Through other lenses, this aviation-dependent urban form is variously a greenhouse horror story and noise machine. The concentration of critical infrastructure is seen as creating a possible security nightmare. There is now a well-organised global anti-aerotropolis network highlighting the environmental and ecological downsides of aviation mega-projects. 
The guileless boosterism attached to many schemes makes them a sitting duck for devastating critiques by the likes of British critic Will Self. He has taken apart their conventional first world premises as “slumbering on the redeye flight to apocalypse”. 
<h2>The naysayers and the true believers</h2>
All such heretical thoughts were scripted out of a recent industry summiton the Western Sydney Aerotropolis. The registration cost could have paid for a few days’ comparative fieldwork at Dubai Aviation City or Incheon/Songdo in South Korea.
Chairman David Borger, of the Western Sydney Business Chamber, smoothly chaired two days’ worth of proceedings that were generally dismissive of naysayers finding different and ineffectual ways of saying no – no airport, no curfew, no jobs. 
This was a room of largely true believers, starting with the federal infrastructure minister, Paul Fletcher, and NSW’s minister for Western Sydney, Stewart Ayers. All were upbeat spruikers for the cause.  
Yet despite the palpable goodwill – and there’s no doubt Sydney has the chance to pull off something world-leading – many questions again surfaced about how this area might best be planned and governed.  
<h2>Something for everyone</h2>
How massive a jobs generator will the airport be? How vulnerable is a sustainable economic strategy for Western Sydney based around an airport that will have to go head-to-head with the established and profitable Kingsford-Smith Airport? 
On a trip to Sydney in 2015, Professor John Kasarda, who has almost trademarked the “aerotropolis” label, made the disruptive suggestion that Kingsford-Smith might best be closed. The old airport could then be transformed into a lucrative urban renewal site to ensure the success of the new airport. 
Sub-regional governance is the major concern: how best to orchestrate infrastructure, timing, type and location of development within special stakeholder-friendly administrative arrangements. 
An “aerotropolis delivery authority” was mooted. But in what form isn’t clear. Local governments and a chafing-at-the-bit development sector respectively need sensibilities assuaged and aspirations equitably managed. 
Dealing with developers large and small, private and institutional, looms as a major challenge. The aerotropolis promotes land dreams because it offers something for everyone – business parks, retail centres, residential estates, innovation districts, medical complexes and university campuses. Advanced planning for a science park at Luddenham is the bellwether. 
<h2>A thoughtful approach</h2>
The aerotropolis notion works best as a reminder of the need for integrated regional planning. What is lacking is a human-scaled approach that values liveability alongside productivity. 
These issues surfaced at the summit and require more attention. How do we promote a healthful metropolis on the back of an airport? The rival paradigm of “airport urbanism” has some utility in stressing small-scale community gains. 
So, there are many questions about how this will pan out. Spatial planning needs to be advanced to develop a clearer vision for the airport. That now should be linked to an implementation model for the wider region that co-ordinates all the public and private players jockeying for a piece of the action. 
As Borger stressed at the summit’s end: so many issues keep coming back to the importance of getting the governance right. Constructing the airport alone will be a demanding engineering project. But the real challenge will be choreographing the mix of old and new city that will surround it.
Robert Freestone is professor of Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/robert-freestone-168551" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Flying into uncertainty: Western Sydney’s ‘aerotropolis’ poses more questions than answers

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/73442/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The plane crash at Essendon Airport showed the folly of allowing runways to co-exist with commercial development.
Tullamarine Airport opened in 1970 partly because of the risk to housing from aircraft at Essendon. Why, then, have authorities allowed extensive new development within Essendon Airport’s boundaries between housing and runways?
Between 1997 and 2003, the federal government provided 99-year airport leases to private consortia, raising A$8.5 billion. This process illustrates how privatisation can lead to unaccountable incremental actions and impacts that public authorities didn’t anticipate.
Since then, in effect, lessees have enjoyed the privileged position in Australian planning law of being able to decide their own futures. The exclusion of such large areas as airports from broader metropolitan planning threatens orderly planning on a grand scale.
Planning academics Robert Freestone and Douglas Baker have argued:
The prospect of market opportunities from property development and commercial initiatives was a key factor in the high prices secured for airport leases.
This process was compromised if higher prices than those justified by leases were reciprocated by commercial approvals. Any future development assessment would be predetermined towards approval. This would prevent fair consideration of objections, resulting in a lack of proper scrutiny in the public interest.
Airport business is booming
Commercial development is now integrated with traditional airport operations across Australia. But aside from possible reciprocal financial expectations, privatisation has provided extraordinary bargains to lessees through large capital and operational returns.
Linfox Group and Beck Corporation, for example, made a reported payment in 2001 of $22 million for a lease on 305 hectares of prime inner-urban land at Essendon Airport. They have turned this into a projected $1 billion enterprise over the next decade. One-quarter of the airport is leased to commercial tenants.
Business zones adjoin or wrap around runways. The plane crashed into a large retail DFO complex. An eight-storey 150-bed hotel, conference centre, a five-storey office block, private hospital, supermarket, auto centre and much else have also been built or are planned. Projected employment in the precinct is 18,000.
Air traffic has expanded significantly too. Essendon is home to executive air, charter, freight, media and regional air services, air ambulance, police and private aircraft. Essendon is Australia’s largest corporate jet base.
All this activity reinforces the public danger from the incompatibility of air and commercial land uses under privatised governance arrangements.
Operators bypass state planning rules
Under the Airports Act, Essendon Airports Pty Ltd must prepare a management plan outlining airport development for 20 years. The privatised management of airports inherited the Commonwealth’s constitutional overriding of state and territory land-use planning provisions. Master plans must only address “consistency” with state and local planning schemes.
However, airport lessees are not required to act on submissions. Essendon Airport Pty Ltd gave “due regard to all written comments”, then forwarded submissions and its master plan to the federal government. The Commonwealth approved the plan in 2014 regardless of broader urban planning considerations.
Victorian government planning policy has attempted to concentrate commercial development in mixed-use centres well served by public transport. Essendon Airport is a classic road-based, out-of-centre location. It was not identified as an activity centre in Melbourne metropolitan planning. But, for 30 years, no Victorian government has shown an appetite for curbing out-of-centre development.
The 2014 metropolitan plan, Plan Melbourne, proposed to “investigate opportunities for… increased development and employment” at Essendon. Airport management submitted a case to the revised metropolitan strategy process for recognition as an activity centre.
State and local authorities originally expressed concern at the proposal to construct the DFO at Essendon Airport. However, more recently, local and state attitudes have changed.
In 2014, the Liberal planning minister, Matthew Guy, announced a new airport employment precinct and a partnership between the developers, Metropolitan Planning Authority and state and local governments. The airport was identified as both a key transport gateway and important commercial area.
Labor Niddrie MP Ben Carroll also welcomed the expansion of commercial activities. Moonee Valley Council expressed concerns but did not oppose the major proposed land uses. Councillors expressed the view that Essendon Fields is “an important economic hub” and a “vibrant business precinct”.
The then federal infrastructure minister, Warren Truss, said in 2015 that:
Airports are now business destinations in their own right and provide a powerful economic engine for their home region and local communities.
In similar language, Essendon Airport Pty Ltd CEO Chris Cowan said that:
Essendon Airport [provides] a unique opportunity to reinforce its activity centre function by realising non-aviation development potential.
Everybody is now speaking from the same script.
State and local policy has increasingly become aligned with the Commonwealth helping to further the private interests of airport operators at increasing risk to the public.
Instead, airport governance should redefine Commonwealth responsibilities to its citizens and be integrated with broader metropolitan planning. This ultimately may mean closing down airport operations at Essendon.
Michael Buxton is professor of Environment and Planning, RMIT University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-buxton-1381" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Airport

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Airport

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News