Update on the C4 – vs– CCRC court appeal

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.

           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:

There are NO conditions that can be applied to this Approval which can mitigate the impacts of ANY commercial helicopter operation at 2224 Tully Mission Beach Road.

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    [email protected].  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