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:
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
0 Comments
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 . LG
Mission Beach Cassowaries
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;
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'.
Helicopter noise trials were carried out at the proposed helicopter development site in Mission Beach during the middle of the day on Wed 28th October as per the Court order issued on September 3rd.  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.  Bell 206 Long Ranger Robinson - Bedarra passenger transfer helicopter 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.
It was made clear the noise trials were only concerned with impact on residents so it was disappointing the community was not informed of the trial date and time. Noise levels from any model helicopter on a designated flight path are known or can be calculated, so it could have added weight to a fair assessment to give opportunity for feedback from residents within the noise impact zone. The trials were not concerned with any noise impacts on the bike path or the beach or the environment. We were told the appeal process has made the whole council approval null and void. "That a lot has changed since then. Such as the aircraft now being proposed for the development is the Bell Long Ranger and the Robinson". With little or no information being shared with the community we must trust that any 'negotiations' or 'agreements' during the appeal proceedings are from a firm position of 'No Helicopters Here'. Takeoff of Bell Long Ranger flight number 4 Residents feedback We were alerted to the trials by a Conch Street resident during the third of four Bell 206 Long Ranger flights from the development site. The video above is of the last flight takeoff. Residents in Conch Street, Oasis and residential subdivision south of Marcs Park reported intrusive noise during the trials. A recording taken by a resident at Shelly Court registered 65.9 db at 11.56am and 87.3db at 11.58 during the Bell 206 flight. As another Mission Beach resident observed..." that is loud band level".
The graphic shows the locations of the above feedback to the north of the flight path and assumes the helicopters were using the path provided to the CCRC as mentioned in approval Condition no 7.  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. Helicopter flying over Bingil Bay 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. LG
MBC As per the September 3 court order, Mission Helicopters will be carrying out a set of helicopter movements to and from 2224 Tully Mission Beach Road this week as part of a noise level trial. The date and times of the trial depend on the availability of the monitoring company and are unknown at the time of this publication. C4 advised that noise levels will be recorded of the aircraft described in Mission Helicopter's Development Application (DA) i e the large medium lift helicopters Sikorsky S-76, Bell 412, and Bell 206L3 (below) .
The process for the trial has been determined by helicopter and noise experts as agreed by both parties and will be monitored by two independent noise-recording experts. The data from the recordings will then be analysed for use by the expert witnesses in the upcoming Planning and Environment Court case. Recordings will be taken during take off, landing and to and from the proposed development site following the approved flight path; although there has always been some confusion over which is the correct flight path given condition 7 of the CCRC approval document differs significantly from the Approach/Departure Waypoint Flight Plan provided by Mission Helicopters.
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.  Community people (sic) have been asked to cooperate with the trial process so the best information can be gathered for the legal proceedings. In the public interest, C4 has requested people to monitor noise levels from their homes so they can determine what the likely effects of proposed helicopter movements might have on them. 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
The community is understandably anxious that a helicopter base in the heart of Mission Beach might be a 'done deal' given all the activity on the approved development site lately. But that is NOT the case! While the appellants of the court appeal against the helicopter development approval are playing their cards close to their chest, the co respondent is going for a different tactic.
A fence has now been erected around the proposed site and a new "Your Mission Starts Here" sign installed announcing helicopter tours. What is the purpose of this overt promotion of helicopter services while the appeal is still in the court? Is this a show of contempt for the community who oppose the development or is it just plain insensitivity? When the Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, Dr Steven Miles declined the community's request to use his 'call in' powers to reassess the development, he said "the Planning and Environment Court is the appropriate forum to examine any issues relating to the technical assessment of this application". The community must accept and respect this current legal process for development assessments.
Respect for process doesn't appear to be a priority for Mission Helicopters. Apparently the large advertising sign went up without a permit. The Council has given the landowner 20 business days from 28 September 2021 to either lodge the appropriate development application (a code assessable operational works application for an advertising device) or remove the sign. 
The current appeal situation
Proposed helicopter flight trial 1. On or before 7 October 2021, the acoustic experts will meet to determine the terms of reference, minimum requirements, methodology and reporting for the proposed helicopter flight trial [“agreed approach”]. 2. On or before 29 October 2021, the proposed helicopter flight trial will occur pursuant to the agreed approach. 3. On or before 22 November 2021, the data obtained from the proposed helicopter flight trial will be analysed pursuant to the agreed approach and the acoustic experts will provide to the parties’ solicitors a copy of their reporting pursuant to the agreed approach. Review 4. The appeal will be reviewed on 3 December 2021.
Community opposition is not limited to the acoustic impacts the developer might admit to. In any case, the integrity of the acoustic testing depends on the integrity of the developer and his application - and we’ve already lost faith in that. We don’t have any faith that the limitations he’s agreed with the Council will not be exceeded once his business is installed. Remember the Application and the boat washing facility included in the fine print? So he’s not likely to disclose future bigger aircraft he’s actually got in mind: why would he invite further community opposition? All the community can know is that C4 and the developer have now agreed to “an approach” to acoustic testing; this being a negotiated outcome, there must be something in this “approach” for the developer (or he wouldn’t have agreed to it), presumably his opportunity to produce a rosy picture of noise impacts or of mitigation measures. Given the size and tentacles of Mission Helicopters and related business, it would be prudent to guess he’s done all this before. Within the limits of the “agreed approach”, C4 and the developer have further agreed to prepare terms of reference for the acoustic testing; ie they have agreed to limits as to what and how helicopter “noise” will be measured, and under what conditions. We have no information about these tor, nor what expert advice went into them, but we can be sure the MH knows all about this stuff - after all, it’s his business. See invitation below to contact C4 for more information. Margaret Moorhouse Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook (ASH) 
ORDER Before His Honour Judge Morzone QC Date of Hearing: 3 September 2021 Date of Order: 3 September 2021 IT IS ORDERED THAT: Proposed helicopter flight trial 1. On or before 7 October 2021, the acoustic experts will meet to determine the terms of reference, minimum requirements, methodology and reporting for the proposed helicopter flight trial [“agreed approach”]. 2. On or before 29 October 2021, the proposed helicopter flight trial will occur pursuant to the agreed approach. 3. On or before 22 November 2021, the data obtained from the proposed helicopter flight trial will be analysed pursuant to the agreed approach and the acoustic experts will provide to the parties’ solicitors a copy of their reporting pursuant to the agreed approach. Review 4. The appeal will be reviewed on 3 December 2021. Video source: Mission Helicopters facebook page
While the sound of a helicopter may have many rushing to their windows to identify the make of the aircraft, the majority of people feel an intense sense of annoyance, or more accurately, disruption or anxiety. So, what is it about helicopters that is so intrusive, placing people and animals outside their comfort zone?  The answer is Infrasound otherwise known as the 'fear frequency'. It's all explained in the following article 'The Fear Frequency' by Mark Pilkington ( The Guardian 6 Oct 2003) "Have you ever wondered what a ghost sounds like?" Engineer Vic Tandy may already know. "The key here is frequency: 19hz is in the range known as infrasound, below the range of human hearing, which begins at 20hz. Engineer Vic Tandy learned that low frequencies in this region can affect humans and animals in several ways, causing discomfort, dizziness, blurred vision (by vibrating your eyeballs), hyperventilation and fear, possibly leading to panic attacks". In the early 1980s, Tandy was working in a laboratory designing medical equipment. Word began to spread among the staff that the labs might be haunted, something Tandy put down to the constant wheeze of life-support machines operating in the building. One evening he was working on his own in the lab when he began to feel distinctly uncomfortable, breaking into a cold sweat as the hairs on the back of his neck stood on end. He was convinced that he was being watched. Then, out of the corner of his eye, Tandy noticed an ominous grey shape drifting slowly into view, but when he turned around to face it, it was gone. Terrified, he went straight home.
A more recent investigation took place in an allegedly haunted 14th-century pub cellar in Coventry, where people have reported terrifying experiences for many years, including seeing a spectral grey lady. Here Tandy also uncovered a 19hz standing wave, adding further evidential weight to his theory. In an interesting parallel, researchers have recorded that, prior to an attack, a tiger's roar contains frequencies of about 18hz, which might disorientate and paralyse their intended victim. Is this the sound of fear itself?" We have uploaded some articles of interest on the subject here. You can listen to the sound of 20 Hertz, the theoretical minimum frequency a human can hear. An article in Vertical magazine 'The science behind helicopter noise — and how the industry is working to reduce it ' identifies "... two locales where helicopter noise seems to be a major issue. In urban areas, you have a multitude of helicopter operations: law enforcement, medical transport, local news, some business transportation, and tourism. And then there’s the more remote, scenic tourist destinations, where those on the ground object to aircraft interrupting their experience in an otherwise serene wilderness. Typically, helicopter tours are the main source of annoyance in these places. The majority of this information can be logically applied to what is anticipated from heliport activities on 2224 Tully Mission Beach Road. The Kestral Aviation information sheet states " We will be predominately using our Bell 206L3 Long Ranger and Sikorsky S-76 helicopters, and on rare occasions, our Bell Medium (212 or 412) fleet when need requires (such as in response to natural disasters). Vertical magazine informs "...The Bell 212 generates high levels of impulsive noise..."
The article Dynamics of rock arches shows a plot of the sound spectrum generated by a two-blade Bell 206 helicopter (below). In it you see the first frequency peak at 13 Hz with a series of overtones at integer multiples  The sound spectrum generated by a Bell 206 Thank you to Margaret Moorhouse from ASH for sharing this information. At the C4 general meeting held Friday on 3rd July, the C4 theatrette was overflowing with community members interested in an update on the court appeal. C4 president, Peter Rowles, recapped on the court process saying the respective parties had lodged their relevant documents for the appeal, and that C4’s solicitors had engaged experts in the areas of;
Peter reported that although details of the Appeal could not be discussed, he could say that the parties were in discussions. Peter went on to say that Mission Helicopters would have helicopter operations experts design trials to demonstrate the noise levels from the activities being planned for the Heliport site. This forms part of the directions order within Stage 4 of the appeal process. Council’s Approval for Material Change of Use (MCU) is not only for the Air services (listed below), it also allows for “other related entities operated by the Directors / Shareholders of the applicant/owner” (CCRC Planners Report 27 Jan 2021). Given Mission Helicopters’ high profile and operational connections across the national and international aviation industry, the reality of the Council’s reprehensible MCU Approval is that Mission Helicopters’ operational possibilities are left wide open. Air Services include:
To be relevant to the Mission Helicopters Proposal, the operational trials mentioned by Peter would presumably have to include all the possible operational aspects of the above. Another important consideration is what flight path will the trials be based on? In the CCRC Decision Notice (27 Jan 2021) (where CCRC mistakenly refer to the applicant as Mission Beach Helicopters) the approval conditions state “. the applicant/owner ‘must ensure”…”helicopters will head directly east over the Coral Sea prior to heading towards intended destinations (emergency situations excepted) as per the Mission Beach Helicopters (sic) Approach/Departure Waypoint Flight Plan received by Council on 14th October 2020…” Yet the Waypoint Flight Plan received on that date (below left) shows a quite different flight path, angled considerably to the south. The actual direct east flight path (below right) shows the impact zone covers the whole of the Conch Street residential area.  MBH Approach/Departure Waypoint Flight Plan Actual Direct East Flight Path  In any case, local councils and Approval conditions may not legally control take-off paths of helicopters. During the meeting, Peter also commented that helicopters were already operating at Mission Beach and that Mission Helicopters can already operate helicopters from their property “…whether we like it or not…”. Such comments are of course irrelevant to this Appeal. If Mission Helicopters could carry out all its desired operations without council approval it would not have bothered applying to the council for approval. Clearly they have something much larger in mind than some minor activities for which approval is not required. From the community’s point of view: the bottom line is it’s a helicopter aerodrome and the community doesn’t want it there. That’s why the community campaign was called No Helicopters Here! Because we know:
The Appeal, after having been adjourned at the first scheduled review on 25th June. will now be reviewed by the Judge on August 6. Could anyone who sees any sign of cassowaries in the vicinity of the development area, including on the beach near Porters Creek, please post photos or sightings with times and dates onto Mission Beach Cassowaries facebook page or email to missionbeachcassowaries@gmail.com. This information is invaluable to the Appeal.  ------------------------------------------------------------------------- * COURT APPEAL PROCESS
STEP 1 Appeal Period Notice of Appeal filed Within 20 business days from notice of decision STEP 2 Notice of Appeal to Other Parties 10 business days from when Notice of Appeal is filed STEP 3 Other Parties may elect to join appeal 10 Business Days from when they receive Notice of Appeal STEP 4 Directions Order Within six (6) weeks of filing the Notice of Appeal the Appellant must apply for directions To apply for Directions you have to file an application with the court accompanied by affidavit material confirming that the notice of appeal was served on the relevant parties (The Directions order sets out the steps that need to be completed by the parties before the matter can proceed to hearing and normally includes the following: - Disclosure - Confirmation of issues in dispute & request for particulars - Mediation - Meeting of experts - Preparation of expert reports - Continued case management of appeals by court - when the matter will be set down for hearing STEP 5 Hearing of Appeal If the parties cannot reach agreement to settle the appeal after the directions have been complied with, the matter can be set down for hearing
|
Post your helicopter sightings on the No Helicopters Here facebook page
This website is managed by Mission Beach Cassowaries inc to share information about the No Helicopters Here campaign against the approval of A HELICOPTER BASE on 2224 Tully Mission Beach Road.
Latest on court appeal orders
On 3rd Dec the appeal was reviewed. Judge Morzone ordered (above) the appellant (C4) to provide a list of matters they wish to be considered for inclusion in the proposed conditions attached to any approval of the development application.
On the 3rd September an Order (above) was made by his Honour Judge Morzone QC.
The appeal will be reviewed on 3 December 2021 
On the 6th August the court ordered MH to respond to C4 correspondence by August 15th.
Next appeal review is listed for 3rd September. 
Grounds C4 has filed to appeal the Heliport approval decision
Grounds on which Mission Helicopters, as co respondent , will defend the appeal .
Archives
March 2022
Categories |
RSS Feed