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'. 

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. ​

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

​

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.​

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".​

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

​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;

• helicopter operations,
•  planning, and
•  the environment.

 Links to these documents can be seen  in the column to the right and are    part of Steps 1 to 3 of the appeal process (as outlined below*).

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:

• The arrival and departure of aircraft;
• The housing, servicing, refueling, maintenance and repair of aircraft;
•  The assembly and dispersal of passengers or goods on or from an aircraft;

Any ancillary activities directly serving the needs of passengers and visitors for:

• Associated training and education facilities; and
• Aviation facilities.

Associated uses including medical transfers, aerial firefighting and search and rescue operations will also be undertaken on an as required basis.

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.

* 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