LG
Mission Beach Cassowaries
​missionbeachcassowaries@gmail.com

In an interview with rural reporter Charlie McKillop on ABC Far North radio this morning,   Mr Cronin said "The funny part about this application is it is solely about erection of buildings on the site,  nothing to do with helicopters".  

Why  then, was the  development application  a Material Change of Use   to include air services?  Why did the council condition the number of helicopters on the site, the hours of operation and the flight path if the application had nothing to do with helicopters?  The community certainly doesn't think there is anything funny about this application. 

Mr Cronin also said  the community had their chance to have a say during the comment period.  The community spoke with a strong voice  when a     high number of  submissions were lodged against the DA.   Community concerns were not only ignored but the councillors were ordered by the then CEO not to talk to their own constituents, the very people who voted them to be their representatives.  One councillor claimed he could not discuss the application claiming conflict of interest.  A  culture of separation emerged between council representatives and the public  with   flippant behaviour    bordering on contempt by some councillors. ​

We are being told by Mr Cronin that it's too late  to object to his proposal  since the gate's closed and the horse has bolted.  He emphasises he has legal approval.  There is a difference between legal and proper.   Governments on all levels have failed the Mission Beach community forcing them  into a costly court battle,   perhaps  ill equipped  to take on  legally enforceable negotiations    with a wealthy developer who has made it clear he is not interested in doing anything  to address their concerns unless he is forced to.   

In defending his position, Mr Cronin added, "Quite frankly if I hadn’t done it someone else would have. There is already helicopter activity right in town,  we are taking a responsible approach by placing it between the towns". Based on Mr Cronin's argument we might as well all start importing fentanyl because if we don't, someone else will. 
​
 Referring to the  compromise reached between C4 and himself during the court appeal mediation, Mr Cronin claimed "We are taking a far more responsible approach to noise mitigation than other people are."   In    the absence of   regulations    covering helicopter activity in Queensland, C4 and Mr Cronin  agreed to use the noise levels in Victorian regulation as a benchmark  in the trials carried out at Mission Beach.  

 Aircraft noise is gauged  against  ambient noise of an area. We have not been able to establish exactly what the regulations are for Victoria or where in Victoria the comparison is being made  but it would be safe to say the environment would be vastly different than the high biodiversity of the Mission Beach environs.   

​C4 has entered into a legally binding agreement  determining 'acceptable' noise levels with an expert  who would be fully aware of how much noise a helicopter makes. The agreement was made    without  any consultation with  residents during the negotiations. 

 Charlie McKillop concluded the process must have been tortuous for  Mr Cronin. Does that mean  Mr Cronin is  a victim  instead of a wealthy businessman who has got his own way,  against the public interest?  It may be tortuous for  Mr  Cronin but  it continues to be  torturous for the community and their unknown future.​

Mr Cronin is the sole beneficiary of a proposal that has already caused social division and continues to cause ongoing anxiety and stress within our community. An industrial aerodrome at 2224 Tully Mission Beach Road will have an irreversible impact on our community’s sense of place and wellbeing.​

​

During  his   presentation,    Mr Cronin claimed his business will help the community but his actions show  his  interests lie  in what is allowed by law, not the legitimate needs of the local community. 

Mr Cronin made it  clear  the court had approved  his development adding there was now no further legal avenue of appeal  .

"It might be legal but that doesn't mean it is moral, ethical or acceptable to the residents of Mission Beach who have an expectation they can live in peace and quiet and not be disturbed by noisy intrusive helicopter activity". said Ms Gallie.  "Legal processes are easily available to a wealthy developer to intimidate the local community into putting up with the unacceptable"

"Wooing the public with  a promise of  local benefits  through tourism transfers  from Cairns and Townsville to Dunk Island and Bedarra and a feel good focus on emergency services  belies the true impact Mission Helicopters aerodrome will have on our small community". 

​Mission  Helicopers is not a boutique business servicing our nature sensitive  tourist  town. said Ms Gallie. "  In Mr Cronins 'DNA' as he puts it, is  the ability to   establish    Kestrel  Aviation, one of Australia's largest fleets of specialist multi-role helicopters in Australia. 

This trojan horse will be bringing  all the  helicopter  activities in  the following list, with work for;

• Utilities
• Power
• Water catchment
• Land management
• Construction
• Survey and
• other helicopter related activities
• AMSA (Australian Maritime Safety Authority) 

• JRCC  (Joint Rescue Coordination Centre) as well as  
• Disaster response.

Given this extensive list of  helicopter activites   made legal  through the court order, it is difficult  to understand what was meant in   C4's media release following their withdrawal   from the appeal when President Peter Rowles  said: “We were not able to stop the helicopter base altogether but we were able to secure some more favourable conditions governing its operation". ​

The Air Services Noise and complaints information service     know how disturbing helicopter activity is  but  concede that no law or regulations exists to limit any type of aviation activity.   This fact was established during the appeal negotiations between C4 and Mission Helicopters and highlighted in Mr Cronins presentation.
 
The negotiations relied on the willingness of each party to reach an agreement. The community expectation was any agreement would only be acceptable if it addressed their well voiced concerns. Failing a suitable mediation outcome, it was believed the appeal would continue to a court hearing.
 
The outcome was not what the community was looking for. The appeal against the Council’s approval was withdrawn in favour of a negotiated agreement.  The approval and conditions were based on an agreed  noise level and other compromises during the mediation.
 
How much noise do Robinson 444 and Bell Long Ranger helicopters make? "Most certainly Mr Cronin knows" said Ms Gallie. "Who was responsible for establishing the noise level the trials were assessed against"?   "Who decided the noise level generated from either of the two medium size helicopters used in the trials and now allowed to operate from 2224 Tully Mission Beach Road was acceptable"?   "Why was Mr Cronin allowed to pilot the helicopters during the trials"?

"Who was responsible for the decision that 120 helicopter take offs and landings anytime of any day in the heart of Mission Beach was acceptable"?
 
These questions  go unanswered as the community was not involved or consulted during the negotiations nor did the conditions agreed to and ordered by the court address the community concerns. The matter was not taken to court.  

One of the court ordered conditions is the flight path. Flight paths cannot be enforced as they are determined by the pilot and dependant on weather conditions at the time. Likewise, it is left to the heliport operator to consider any impacts on sensitive areas such as national park and residential areas.   Mr Cronin has not acknowledged or made any attempt to address these community concerns. 

Mr Cronin is aware of the social division and ongoing anxiety and stress his proposal has caused to members of the community.
 
The   petition    asking Mr Cronin to please fly elsewhere now has 314 signatures. The petition  comments explain  the community concerns.
 
If Mr Cronin has a commitment to the community as he claims, why did he avoid questions at the MBCA meeting and why has he not responded to our  open letter?

2224 Tully Mission Beach Rd  is  a strategic rehabilitation area most suited to  a property buy back to establish a robust cassowary corridor  and allowing opportunity for the  rural land to be developed  appropriately, for example, a  high value niche cropping/ farm tourism venture. 
 

LG
​Mission Beach Cassowaries
No Helicopters Here campaign
nohelicoptershere@gmail.com 

UNHAPPY LOCAL RESIDENTS SPEAK UP
“Local residents are speaking up” Ms Gallie said.  “They fear loss of their community’s sense of identity, which depends on the low-key village atmosphere. Decades of consistent feedback from the community have highlighted the special amenity, character and natural environment of Mission Beach”.

New arrivals Robyn and Tony Pembroke moved to Mission Beach from ‘overdeveloped’ Byron Bay, believing they were buying into a peaceful neighbourhood. They had not been advised of the helicopter plans. “It’s unfair to expect residents to accept the noise of a helicopter operation right in the middle of town” said Robyn. “Helicopter noise is extremely loud, unpleasant and intrusive and needs to be well away from houses, especially at a place like Mission Beach”.

Another new resident, who did not wish to be named, had bought a house lot next to the rainforest.  “I was devastated” she said.  “we bought next to the reserve thinking it would be a quiet nature block – we had no idea we’d be next to a helicopter aerodrome! We saved up for this block- it was to be our first home. Now we don’t know what to do. It’s right under the flight path”.

Ends

Mission Beach ‘No Helicopters Here’ campaign supporters
nohelicoptershere@gmail.com
www.nohelicoptershere.com

 Instead of the developer being stopped from building a helicopter aerodrome in the wrong place, the developer has been granted the movement of 120 helicopters every day.  Instead of town planning principles and legislation protecting residents and their surroundings, there will be never-ending impacts on the local cassowaries and community.
 
The court approval of the new agreed conditions replaces the original approval.  Should these conditions be breached, there is no way of enforcing them without going to court.  
 
We have yet to learn what was negotiated for C4 during the mediation.
 
Before anyone decided to go to court, Mission Beach Cassowaries obtained preliminary legal advice that outlined just how inadequate is the local planning scheme to protect the village characteristics and natural environment so highly valued by the present community. Development by Material Change of Use (MCU) – ie by overriding what we used to call “zoning” – is now the path to anti-community development under a complicit local council.
 
Mission Beach Cassowaries set up the  Go Fund Me fundraiser  to help the appeal with an expectation it would proceed to a court hearing.   We thank you for your generous support.   The No Helicopters Here supporters did not receive any correspondence from C4 during the proceedings. Nor were they consulted about the possibility of negotiations with the developer; nor about what, if any, conditions would be acceptable during such negotiations.  Supporters of NO HELICOPTERS HERE meant just that – NO HELICOPTERS HERE. 
 
   As the appeal did not proceed to a hearing we have received some requests for donations to be refunded. The refunds have incurred a GoFundMe fee of 2.2%.   

Please let us know if you would like to:

• Receive a refund (less GoFundMe fee ) 
• Send your donation to C4, or
• Donate to Mission Beach Cassowaries to engage professional advice on how to strengthen the Cassowary Coast Regional Council Planning Scheme and be kept informed of other ways you can have meaningful input to better planning outcomes.  

MBC will now focus our efforts on how the community can have meaningful input into the CCRC Planning Scheme currently under review.
 
If you would like to to receive updates and ways you can help please let us know by emailing us at  missionbeachcassowaries@gmail.com

LG
​Mission Beach Cassowaries

​The conditions include rehabilitation of cassowary habitat to the north and to the south of the development. 

It's all  downwash under the blades now, and there might be lots of it if the developer exercises  his full rights.  The  new conditions will allow up to 120 helicopter movements   a day    from the site  at the centre of  Mission Beach.

Residents who showed  strong support against the devlopment and were willing to  help with  the appeal and expenses   are  asking why they were not consulted  at any time   during the appeal  particularly on what, if any,   conditions might be considered acceptable  to take to mediation with the developer.

The outcome of the appeal has  community members  grappling with the knowledge   their quiet peaceful  township, the reason many  have chosen to settle  at Mission Beach,  will now have the unpredictable intrusion of  noisy  helicopters any time from early morning to late afterrnoon seven days a week.  

Affected residents say they were  given little or no opportunity to have  input into the appeal.  They were discouraged from public show  of  support against the development. There was no  mention of  community expectation in the judgment handed down from  Judge Morzone,  a factor that has strong sway in community court appeals.   

 By sidelining the supporters of the appeal, C4, has  unilaterally negotiated an outcome that will have a significant impact on the future amenity and environment  at    Mission Beach.

With the  appeal no longer proceeding to a hearing, those who contributed to the   No helicopters Here Go Fund Me appeal have been contacted by Mission Beach Cassowaries  (MBC) for instructions regarding their  donations.    See GoFundMe  fundraiser update .

We  trust  the appeal legal team have a strong enough case (as in the grounds for the appeal) to argue, the development does not comply with the planning scheme  and  no conditions  can reduce the unacceptable impacts of  helicopters  operating from 2224 Tully Mission Beach Road,    i.e.   on the; 

•  amenity of Mission Beach,
• the sensitive environment and
• the residents    within   the noise range.

We trust the position will be to   maintain the  development should be refused.
Approval for ANY helicopter activities at this location would be  the 'foot in the door' to future variations and expansion. 

We must wait until Monday 14th February 2022 for the outcomes of the appeal parties' 'negotiations'. 

Kestrel Aviation boss Ray Cronin who   owns Mission Helicopters, piloted  the two  aircraft  used in the trials;  a Bell 206 Long Ranger and the smaller Robinson which is currently used for passenger transfers to and from Bedarra Island. ​

Representatives from both sides of the  court appeal against the helicopter development approval were present to observe the trials including the CCRC Planner Byron Jones who wrote  the Planning Department reports during the development assessment process.

C4 president  Peter Rowles and committee member Ian Shankley were at the front of  2224 Tully Mission Beach Road with  the independent acoustic expert  while vice president and committee members Helen and Jeff Larson observed from the mouth of  Wongaling (Porters) Creek under the flight path. 
​
Acoustic recording devises were placed strategically at either end of the fenced development area  as well as  at houses  within the impact zone.   

A facebook user commented  "Helicopters are loud. Full stop. Everybody knows this, especially when taking off and landing, there should be no landing pads or flight paths any where near residency or nature sanctuary".

​Community members  have questioned   why the trials were carried out during    the hottest time of the day.    While   sound moves faster in warm air than colder air, the wave bends away from the warm air and back toward the ground. That's why sound is able to travel farther in cooler weather.  Was this taken into account by both parties within the ''agreed approach' for the trials?    Mr Cronin would be well aware of the nuances of helicopter sound.

 CASA explained
The public might be under the false understanding  the  Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has some control over noise levels or impacts on people or the environment.  CASA has no remit in land development application approvals and/or the process of aircraft permissions in using the facilities.   CASA's responsibility under civil aviation legislation is to oversee aviation safety. 
 
 CASA does not regulate aircraft noise and/or environment impacts.  It is usually a matter managed within the land development application with impact statements.     The council could, or better,  should  have made this a  requirement of  the Development Application (DA) but dodged it by claiming they only have no responsibility  once a  helicopter is in the air. While CASA cannot enforce fly friendly agreements they encourage consideration by council authorities and with the helipad operator and local residents. No such agreement was considered as part of  the helicopter development assessment process.

Further, CASA does not  have any jurisdiction over where  helicopters  can fly . The pilot must determine the safest route in landing and take-off,  depending on conditions at the time.  The helipad/heliport operator generally specifies operating procedures for aircraft using the landing site, and this will include flight paths relevant to safe routes and can be in consideration of impacts of aircraft with sensitive areas, such as national park and residential areas.  This means  a specific flight path is not enforceable which leaves in question how  the full potential noise impact can be accurately  gauged.

  Increased helicopter activity at Mission Beach
Meanwhile, since Mission Helicopters has been promoting scenic tours operating from Tully aerodrome, residents  from South Mission Beach to Brooks Beach   are reporting an increase in helicopter   activity  around the region.    Island Reef Helicopters  has been observed flying noisily along the beach close to the water disturbing Red-tailed black cockatoos. 

Residents at Brooks Beach report helicopter movements regularly, using no particular flight path; sometimes over land, sometimes directly overhead and other times following the coastline over the sea. The helicopter used in the noise trial video (above) was identified  flying "quite low'  directly over houses along Brooks Beach  on the day of the trial.

It seems  there isn't a day without  helicopter activity at Mission Beach. Under any circumstances  helicopters  are intrusive and destroy the   normally quiet peaceful ambience Mission Beach is known for.

During the court appeal process, there is no room  for compromise   from  the position  of NO HELIPORT at   2224 Tully Mission Beach Road    An      agreement to allow   any     helicopter business to operate from the site  is simply the first  'foot in the door' to  future applications for variations and increased use.

The appeal will be reviewed on 3 December 2021.​

 The  CCRC Planners    report  presented at the CCRC General meeting 21 Jan  2021 (Page 256)   stated     3 helicopters could be   in use at any one time. None of the approval conditions limit the number of helicopters.  Fully representative  trials would need to take this into account.   ​

Given the impact would also be felt   by those enjoying the beach or using the bike path,  these are other places the community could  gain  an insight into the selected activities of the trial. The map, above right, shows the supposed impact zone of both flight path scenarios.

It is stressed  that  noises other than  those of the helicopters can negate the results of the tests so those interested in being present while the trials are being carried out are asked to please observe quietly.

The community could rightfully ask why the burden of proof is  on the objectors to demonstrate noise nuisance?

Why wasn't  Mission Helicopters  required to  lodge a   report  with the DA to   show that the noise he intended making was below acceptable limits?

We will keep you informed as soon as we have any further information on the trial date. 

LG
MBC

​