The microlight airstrip was proposed for a farm property at the end of Netherwood Lane, adjoining Western Port wetlands. BASS Coast councillors had no hesitation in grounding a proposed microflight hub on the outskirts of Bass at Wednesday’s council meeting.
Steve Paulet, a member of the Southern Microlight Club, applied for a permit to construct a 550m airstrip and hangar on property at the end of Netherwood Lane.
While up to 10 microlights would be stored in the hangar, the application stated that the property would not be used as a clubhouse or club headquarters, and stressed it was not a commercial operation.
Steve Paulet, a member of the Southern Microlight Club, applied for a permit to construct a 550m airstrip and hangar on property at the end of Netherwood Lane.
While up to 10 microlights would be stored in the hangar, the application stated that the property would not be used as a clubhouse or club headquarters, and stressed it was not a commercial operation.
“Each aircraft owner will fly their own aircraft for personal recreational purposes and will not give flying lessons or act as sight-seeing tourist operators with fee paying passengers.”
The proposal was for a maximum of 20 flights a day, with flights taking off over Western Port then generally turning east or west to follow the Bass Highway.
The council received 31 submissions on the proposal, including a 52-signature petition opposing it.
Objectors cited noise and privacy concerns, but most objections were on the basis of the potential impact on the adjoining Western Port wetlands, which are protected by international law.
The council officer’s report noted: “This is of particular importance as the planes flightpath is over the adjoining shoreline. With no information submitted addressing the possible impact of the flights over the wetlands, Council is not supportive of a use which could place the integrity of the Ramsar site at risk.”
The report stated a fauna impact assessment was required to determine which species would be affected and mitigation efforts to control noise pollution.
“Lighting must be wildlife friendly so it doesn’t impact the flight paths, breeding and roosting of birds. Bird strike and collision leading to damage to aircraft and potential crashes into the RAMSAR wetland should also be considered.”
The report recommended the application be refused on a number of other grounds, including the applicant’s failure to prepare an Aboriginal cultural heritage management plan, to address safety concerns or to demonstrate how it would be a compatible land use for the land, which is zoned for farming.
Moving a motion to refuse a permit, Cr Bruce Kent said the application was incomplete. “The applicant should get some good advice from a planner and consider whether to resubmit.”
The proposal was for a maximum of 20 flights a day, with flights taking off over Western Port then generally turning east or west to follow the Bass Highway.
The council received 31 submissions on the proposal, including a 52-signature petition opposing it.
Objectors cited noise and privacy concerns, but most objections were on the basis of the potential impact on the adjoining Western Port wetlands, which are protected by international law.
The council officer’s report noted: “This is of particular importance as the planes flightpath is over the adjoining shoreline. With no information submitted addressing the possible impact of the flights over the wetlands, Council is not supportive of a use which could place the integrity of the Ramsar site at risk.”
The report stated a fauna impact assessment was required to determine which species would be affected and mitigation efforts to control noise pollution.
“Lighting must be wildlife friendly so it doesn’t impact the flight paths, breeding and roosting of birds. Bird strike and collision leading to damage to aircraft and potential crashes into the RAMSAR wetland should also be considered.”
The report recommended the application be refused on a number of other grounds, including the applicant’s failure to prepare an Aboriginal cultural heritage management plan, to address safety concerns or to demonstrate how it would be a compatible land use for the land, which is zoned for farming.
Moving a motion to refuse a permit, Cr Bruce Kent said the application was incomplete. “The applicant should get some good advice from a planner and consider whether to resubmit.”