2009 Hobart Airport Master Plan

Transcription

HIAPL
2009 Hobart Airport
Master Plan
HIAPL
Contents
Page
i Executive Summary
1 2 Introduction
1 1.1 Background
1 1.2 History
2 1.3 HIAPL
3 1.4 Airlines and Tenants
4 Development Objectives
6 2.1 Vision
6 2.2 Development Objectives
6 3 Economic Benefit
4 The Master Plan Process
11 4.1 Previous Master Plans
11 4.2 2009 Master Plan
12 4.3 State and Local Context
14 5 6 7 9 Consultation Process
17 5.1 Overview
17 5.2 Prior to the Public Consultation Period
17 5.3 Public consultation phase
19 Air Traffic Forecasts
22 6.1 Current Operations
22 6.2 Demand since 2004
23 6.3 Forecasting
24 6.4 Passenger Traffic
25 6.5 Freight Traffic
30 6.6 GA Traffic
30 6.7 ‘Long Range’ Forecast for Noise Modelling
30 Aviation Capacity
33 7.1 Aerodrome Reference Code
33 7.2 Design Aircraft
34 7.3 Existing Runway and Taxiway System
34 7.4 Future Runway System
35 7.5 Taxiway System
38 7.6 Existing Apron Areas
39 7.7 Apron Planning - Passenger Aircraft
39 7.8 Apron Planning – Freight Aircraft
42 7.9 Apron Planning – General Aviation
43 J:\...\SUPERSEDED\0029E 2009 FINALMP.DOC
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
8 9 7.10 Terminal Planning
44 7.11 Implementation
47 Aircraft Noise
48 8.1 Introduction
48 8.2 Responsibilities
49 8.3 The ANEF
49 8.4 Noise Modelling Methodology
50 8.5 Aircraft Operations and Noise
50 8.6 Flight Tracks
51 8.7 Noise Modelling Results
54 8.8 Comparison of the 2004 and 2009 Master Plan ANEF Contours
56 8.9 Consultation with Stakeholders on Noise
57 Other Aviation Uses
58 9.1 Air Services Australia
58 9.2 Airport Operational Services
59 9.3 Airport Lighting
60 9.4 Airside Signage
60 9.5 Airline Support Facilities
60 9.6 Utilities and Services
62 10 OLS and PANS OPS
65 11 Land Use and Precinct Development
68 11.1 Background
68 11.2 HIAPL’s Commercial Vision
68 11.3 Existing Commercial Development
69 11.4 Commercial Property Assessment
69 11.5 Alignment with External Planning
70 11.6 Precincts
73 11.7 Surface Access and Transport Connections
80 11.8 Environment
80 11.9 Aviation Safety
80 12 13 Environmental Management
81 12.1 Environmental Management at the Airport
81 12.2 Identification of Environmental Issues
83 12.3 Plans for dealing with Environmental Issues
83 Landside Transport
96 13.1 Introduction
96 13.2 Objectives of the Landside Transport Strategy
96 13.3 Landside Transport Trends and Influences
96 J:\...\SUPERSEDED\0029E 2009 FINALMP.DOC
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
14 13.4 Forecast Landside Transport Demand
100 13.5 The Landside Transport Strategy
100 13.6 Monitoring and Updating of the Landside Transport Strategy
104 105 Planning
14.1 Phasing of Development
105 14.2 Initial planning period to 2014
105 14.3 Balance of the forecast planning period 2015-2029
106 14.4 Beyond the forecast planning period – from 2029 onwards
107 Appendices
Appendix A
Master Plan Layout
Appendix B
Minutes from Stakeholder Consultation Workshop
Appendix C
Public Consultation - Submissions and HIAPL Response
J:\...\SUPERSEDED\0029E 2009 FINALMP.DOC
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Executive Summary
Hobart Airport is the busiest airport in Tasmania and is the principal aviation gateway to the
city of Hobart and the southern Tasmanian region. The Airport is located 17 kilometres east
of Hobart, in the City of Clarence, and occupies approximately 565 hectares of land. The
Airport has undergone significant change over the last five years since the approval of the
current 2004 Master Plan, with growth in passenger demand from 1.1 million in 2004 to 1.82
million in 2008. Significant infrastructure changes have taken place, such as the
consolidation of the domestic and international terminals into one facility, to accommodate
this growth in demand. As such, this Master Plan incorporates and reflects this changed
landscape as well documenting revised projections for the future and proposing physical
development to match these forecast projections.
As required by the Airports Act 1996, this 2009 Master Plan will replace the 2004 Master
Plan. It covers a 20 year planning period for development of Hobart Airport (henceforth
known as the Airport) for the period 2009 to 2029. The period 2009 to 2029 is referred to as
the “forecast planning period”.
For aircraft noise exposure the Master Plan also considers the “long range” planning period
to recognise that development or activity outside the Airport legitimately has an outlook
considerably longer than 20 years and needs to be planned with reference to aircraft noise.
Hobart Airport is an essential component of the regional and State economy, and a
significant player in the financial growth and viability of many businesses. To that end, this
Master Plan contains a vision for non-aeronautical development to stimulate business and
provide further benefits to the local community in terms of growth, expenditure and
employment.
The principal changes between the 2004 and 2009 Master Plan documents are as follows:

Forecast growth – Passenger demand in 2029 is now forecast to be 4.25 million
passengers. Revised freight and GA requirements also need to be accommodated.
As such, this Master Plan incorporates associated aeronautical infrastructure
expansion and enhancement to meet this demand including:
o
A revised passenger apron around a central terminal pier;
o
An upgraded and expanded international and domestic terminal; and
o
A consolidated northern freight and southern General Aviation (GA) apron.

Zones and precincts - The 2009 Master Plan identifies 10 precincts, which is an
increase in detail when compared to the four land use zones identified in the 2004
Master Plan. This increase in detail reflects a level of refinement over and above
the potential uses identified in 2004 and also the requirements of the Airports Act
1996 and the direction of the Aviation Green Paper for “greater transparency and
certainty about future land uses at airports”.

2005 Airport Environment Strategy
The preliminary versions of the 2005 Airport Environment Strategy (AES) and the
2004 Master Plan were prepared in parallel in 2003 and 2004. However the AES
was revised after the Master Plan had already been approved, to improve the
strategy in a number of areas. This included incorporation of information from a
comprehensive vegetation assessment that was undertaken in 2005, resulting in a
considerable overall increase in the size of green zones on the site. The 2004
Master Plan therefore does not reflect the same areas as the 2005 AES. In the
2009 Master Plan, the 2005 AES areas are the green zones for the site.

Sustainability Strategy: HIAPL intends to move towards more sustainable use of
resources at the site and to encourage improvements from airport tenants and
developers, through the implementation of a Sustainability Strategy. This strategy
Page i
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
is described in more detail in Section 12 but includes for more sustainable use of
resources at the site and encouraging sustainable improvements from airport
tenants and developers.

Access – upgrade of Holyman Avenue and the retention of the existing secondary
access point to the airport from the Tasman Highway connecting to Loop Road.
HIAPL has committed to continuing discussions with DIER on the future use of the
secondary access and its impacts.

Land Acquisition - As foreshadowed in the 2004 Master Plan, HIAPL recognises
the need to plan for future growth and accordingly has acquired parcels of land on
the south east and south west corners of the Airport site, adjoining Pittwater and
Surf Roads. The purchase of land has been undertaken with regard to due process
and no further acquisition is proposed in this Master Plan.
Long term planning is fundamental to the development of Hobart Airport, with significant
expenditure planned on both aeronautical infrastructure and non-aeronautical infrastructure
over the next five financial years. In providing this expenditure, it is critical that the Airport’s
assets are developed and planned sensibly, hence the need for this Master Plan.
The 2009 Master Plan for Hobart Airport is presented in Figure 1 and Appendix A.
Page ii
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 1
Page iii
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Economic Benefit
HIAPL commissioned an independent economic benefit analysis as part of the Master Plan
study. This study has indicated the considerable impact the Airport has and will continue to
have on the State economy.
This assessment estimated the contribution of Airport development out to 2029 as per the
aeronautical and land use plans set out in Figure 1, assuming all projections to be
commercially viable and all development providing a contribution to the state economy.
The analysis converted proposed development and activities on Airport land into economic
stimuli for low and high development scenarios, as summarised below:

The proposed capital spending on site, which includes infrastructure spending and
building development across the terminal and commercial precincts, totalling $492
million over a 2009 to 2029 period for a low development scenario, and potentially
$1,157 million for a high development scenario.

Terminal and tenant operations, which includes the economic contributions made by
the terminal operation, plus each of the tenants in the commercial precincts as they
grow and develop business over time. These estimates have been developed by
converting estimated floorspace to employment and subsequently in terms of value
added to the economy.
Under the low scenario 294,500m2 of commercial floorspace is estimated to be developed
over the 2009-29 period. This floorspace, along with terminal based activity, is expected to
grow employment at the Airport from 250 currently to 2,120, lifting the direct contribution in
value added to the economy from its current level of $25 million to $175 million.
The respective figures for the high scenario at 2029 are 373,000m2 of development, 3,130
jobs on Airport and a direct contribution to the economy of $232 million.
After accounting for the all of the buyer supplier linkages that emanate from operations at
the Airport, the economic contributions are expected to manifest in significantly larger total
indirect impacts in the Tasmanian and Greater Hobart economies. In fact the total economic
contribution is expected to grow as shown in the table below. These benefits are
anticipated to occur across a range of industries.
Tasmanian Economic Contribution
Low Scenario
• Current levels
• 2029 levels
High scenario
• Current levels
• 2029 levels
Greater Hobart Economic Contribution
Value Added
Employment
Value Added
Employment
$50 million p.a.
$348 million p.a.
500 jobs
4,150 jobs
$45 million p.a.
$317 million p.a.
450 jobs
3,790 jobs
$50 million p.a.
$466 million p.a.
500 jobs
6,200 jobs
$45 million p.a.
$426 million p.a.
450 jobs
5,700 jobs
Table 1 Economic Impact Analysis
Employment at the Airport is estimated to increase from 0.3% of total employment in
Greater Hobart to between 1.4% (low scenario) and 2% (high scenario) in 2029.
As share of Tasmanian employment, employment at the airport is estimated to grow from
0.1% to 0.6% (low scenario) and 0.9% (high scenario) in 2029.
Contributions to Gross State Product (GSP) are projected to increase from 0.2% currently to
between 0.4% (low scenario) and 0.6% (high scenario) of GSP by 2029.
Using the relationship between State and Greater Hobart employment, it is estimated that
the contributions to Gross Regional Product (GRP) of Greater Hobart will grow from
Page iv
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
approximately 0.6% in 2009 to approximately 1.3% (low scenario) and 1.8% (high scenario)
in 2029.
The Airport also contributes to the extent that air passenger and freight movements trigger
investment and productive activities in other industries.
Master Plan Process
Building on the 1999 and 2004 Master Plans, the 2009 Master Plan meets the requirements
of the Airports Act 1996 by:

stating its development objectives for the Airport;

assessing the future needs of civil aviation and other users of the Airport;

setting out its proposals for land use and related development of the Airport site;

presenting noise exposure level forecasts (ANEF);

assessing environmental impacts associated with developments in the plan and
plans for ameliorating or preventing those impacts.
Consultation
The Airports Act 1996 requires a statutory consultation process to be undertaken to ensure
the 2009 Master Plan is relevant, and reflects the realistic expectations of local community,
regional and Airport stakeholders. A preliminary version of the draft Master Plan, as the Act
describes it, was prepared for this purpose.
A program of formal consultation was established during the preparation of the preliminary
draft Master Plan, which involved a wide range of industry stakeholders including airlines
and representatives from Federal, State and Local Government, being consulted at three
separate workshops on aeronautical planning; noise; and land use and environment.
These workshops represent consultation over and above the requirements of the Airports
Act and show HIAPL’s desire and commitment to an open and accountable planning
process, which reflects the views of stakeholders as well as HIAPL.
In accordance with the Act, this preliminary draft Master Plan was made available for public
comment for 60 business days from 27th July 2009 such that the draft Master Plan provided
to the Minister in November acknowledges and reflects the views and input of appropriate
government agencies, the community, and interest groups.
Additional workshops, meetings with stakeholders and a public information session were
also held to further convey and inform the direction of the Master Plan at these sessions.
Submissions received as part of the public consultation process and HIAPL’s response to
these have been provided in the certificate accompanying the draft Master Plan given to the
Minister. The certificate details how the comments made have been addressed in the
Master Plan and includes a list of respondents.
Existing Airport Facilities
Hobart Airport is located 17 kilometres east of Hobart’s CBD, occupying approximately 565
hectares of land. The Airport is served by arterial roads linking it to the centre of Hobart and,
via a regional highway network, to other locations in the State.
HIAPL’s Airport operations include the provision of aeronautical services and facilities,
including the following core Airport infrastructure:

Extensive runway, taxiway and apron infrastructure to cater for up to 747 size
aircraft with weight restrictions.
Page v
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

An integrated domestic and international terminal facility, with the two buildings
connected by a central check in hall, a baggage hall and a checked baggage x-ray
screening system, which links the two terminals into one facility.

The Australian air Express and Toll Air freight facilities. These buildings are owned
respectively by HIAPL and Toll Air and cater for southern Tasmania’s air-freight
needs.

The former Ansett Air Cargo freight facility leased by HIAPL to Sky Trek Pty Ltd.
This facility has been extensively expanded and modernised to provide further
commercial GA capacity.

The Tasair administration, passenger reception and pilot training facility, and
associated general aviation hangar. These facilities, substantially owned by HIAPL,
are some of the most modern in Tasmania, and cater for GA, Regular Passenger
Transport (RPT) traffic, and other freight and charter operations.

The former Alpha Flight Services flight catering kitchen, constructed in 2001, and
purchased by HIAPL in 2003. The building contains modern offices, staff amenities,
and substantial chillers, a blast freezer, storage rooms, food preparation areas,
kitchens, bakery and apron frontage.

Road, parking, sewerage, drainage, electrical and telecommunications reticulation.
Other facilities and services provided by HIAPL and its tenants include car rental, freight
forwarding and logistics, air traffic control, emergency, meteorological, customs,
immigration, and quarantine services.
As of January 2009, the Airport is served by four key passenger airlines: Qantas, Jetstar,
Virgin Blue and Tiger Airways. These airlines carried approximately 1.82 million passengers
through the Airport in the year ended 31st December 2008, on around 13,900 aircraft
movements.
Air Traffic Forecasts
Regular passenger transport forecasts for Hobart Airport are summarised below:

Passenger movements are forecast to grow on average by 4.1% compound annual
growth rate at Hobart from 2009 to 2029.

By 2029, passenger throughput is estimated to reach 4.25 million annual
passengers on 31,000 aircraft movements.

The forecasts indicate a requirement for 8 narrow-body (Code C) and 1 wide-body
(Code E) positions by 20291.

It is anticipated that international regular passenger transport flights could
commence between Hobart and New Zealand and Hobart and Singapore or Kuala
Lumpur by 2012. Relatively frequent, year round services are anticipated by 2029
and in the longer term considered for noise modelling, with international traffic
accounting for approximately 8% of traffic.

Air freight tonnage peaked at Hobart in the late 1980s. International exporters and
importers will continue to make use of the higher frequency, multiple destination
services available from Melbourne.

Domestically, increases in sea freight capacity across Bass Strait have created
uncertainty for the air-freight industry, though freight shipped in the bellyhold of
passenger aircraft continues to grow broadly in line with passenger traffic. A
consolidated freight facility is planned north of the terminal.
1
A320s and B737-800s as operated by Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin Blue and Tiger are Code C aircraft, designated as having a wingspan of 24m up to
but not including 36m. A Code D aircraft has a wingspan of 36m up to but not including 52m, and a Code E aircraft such as a B747, B777 or
A330 has a wingspan of 52m up to but not including 65m.
Page vi
Final 1 July 2010
HIAPL

GA movements have fallen from around 5,500 movements in 2004 to 4,500 in 2008
on account of the general decline in GA activity. However, GA is and continues to
be an important component of Hobart’s traffic mix and HIAPL is consolidating GA to
the south of the existing passenger terminal, as described below.
New Aeronautical Facilities
Further development of Airport infrastructure and facilities (including taxiways, aprons,
passenger terminals, freight and other associated GA facilities) will largely occur during the
forecast planning period as driven by demand, market and external conditions.

Runway 12/30, currently 2,251 metres, is sufficient to accommodate forecast growth
for the forecast planning period and beyond.

A geometric exercise has been undertaken to investigate potential runway
extensions but it is not envisaged that the runway be extended during the forecast
planning period. Accordingly an extension is not part of the 20 year Master Plan.
This exercise has been undertaken to explore the opportunity to extend the runway
and the benefit this might have for capacity, as opposed to being a statement of
intent to extend the runway.

The taxiway system is currently underutilised and can accommodate traffic at least
up to the end of the forecast planning period. However, HIAPL is committed to the
ongoing improvement of the Airport and has included provision of a parallel taxiway
running the full length of Runway 12/30 in this Master Plan. Construction of this
taxiway would be subject to commercial discussions with airlines.

The passenger apron is near capacity, with 4 domestic narrow-body aircraft on
stand overnight through the summer of 2008/09, with the fifth narrow-body stand
taken, when required, by the Skytraders A319 operating to and from the Antarctic.
Growth in demand for aircraft parking will need to be met by an increase in apron
stands.

The forecasts indicate a requirement for 8 narrow-body (Code C) and 1 wide-body
(Code E) positions by 2029, which can be achieved with minimal apron expansion,
owing to a shift to power-in push-back stands around a central pier on the terminal.

The introduction of Antarctic services has ushered in an exciting new period in the
history of Hobart Airport. HIAPL expects to support and nurture this relationship by
planning and delivering aeronautical infrastructure as appropriate over the forecast
planning period.

Capacity on the existing freight apron is restricted, and any significant development
of the freight market would require an expansion of facilities. Areas have been
allocated at the Airport for a future freight terminal to the north of terminal building,
with a taxiway extension to service the facility. This combines the current Australian
air Express and Toll Air operations into one consolidated area, with an ability to
expand including for other operators. Apron parking for two narrow-body (Code C)
and one wide-body (Code D) aircraft is planned. Vehicular access to this new
freight area will still be via the Tasman Highway and then the Airport’s internal road
network.

Apron areas and taxiways have also been planned to the south of the existing
freight apron for the development of GA facilities to accommodate growth. This
provision may also be needed should Cambridge Airport cease operating as an
airport in the future. Decisions about the future of Cambridge are decisions entirely
for its owner to make, noting the owner no longer needs to operate the land as an
aerodrome since that condition of original sale has expired.
Page vii
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Noise
In accordance with the Airports Act, the Master Plan includes an Australian Noise Exposure
Forecast (ANEF) contour map for the Airport operating at a long-term horizon. The ANEF
was endorsed for technical accuracy in the approved manner by Airservices Australia (ASA)
on 25th August 2009.
This long-term horizon represents a feasible airport capacity, recognising Hobart’s potential
for growth, as opposed to being a theoretical maximum throughput. Over the course of
growth up to the feasible capacity, any potential impacts of noise from aircraft around the
Airport can be identified and managed.
The Airport’s location, on the Seven Mile Beach perimeter between the waterways of Barilla
Bay and Frederick Henry Bay, minimises adverse community noise impacts.
New Commercial Development (Non-Aeronautical)
HIAPL is committed to enhancing the role of Hobart Airport in stimulating regional economic
activity. New commercial and property developments on the Airport are critical to the
promotion of tourism and regional growth.
HIAPL aims to work towards satisfying the demand for commercial, retail and aviationrelated development that could benefit from an Airport location, and connections to and
within the Cities of Clarence, Hobart and the Municipality of Sorell.
Development precincts have been identified, and adopted in this Master Plan. 10 precincts
have been identified, which is an increase in detail from the four zones identified in the 2004
Master Plan. This increase in detail reflects a level of refinement over and above the
potential uses identified in 2004 and also the requirements of the Airports Act and the
direction of the Aviation Green Paper for greater clarity on potential development.
Environmental Issues and Management
The environmental issues considered in the preparation of the 2009 Master Plan include
hydrology and wastewater management, flora, fauna, and heritage. These matters will be
given detailed consideration in the 2010 AES, which will be prepared following this Master
Plan. The Airport’s current Environment Strategy was approved on 1st November 2005.
Measures to address the management of environmental issues on the Airport include the
following:

The 2009 Master Plan maintains the green zones that were the areas identified in
the 2005 AES.

The Master Plan recognises the June 2009 listing of the ecological community
Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania under the Commonwealth Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 and the flora species
protected under the State’s Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 that are
present as part of this community.

HIAPL intends to conclude a Vegetation Management Agreement (VMA) with the
State, upon approval of the Master Plan, which will commit HIAPL to the active
management of the Airport’s agreed green zones to maintain and enhance their
varied respective values.

HIAPL acknowledges and would respect that any change to its green zonings and
the VMA would need to be achieved by working within the EPBC referral framework
with DEWHA and, with approval from that process, by submitting a minor variation
of the Master Plan to the Minister for approval.
Page viii
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

Since the previous Master Plan, Airport wastewater is now treated by the Southern
Water regional wastewater treatment plant on the Airport site and this new facility
removes a significant source of pollution to Sinclair Creek.

Flora species and vegetation communities of importance have been mapped and
the implementation of management measures to protect future habitats for them on
the Airport continues, outside of existing and potential future land based
developments.

An Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Airport Site has been
developed.

Ongoing reporting to the Federal Government regarding environmental
management at the airport continues in the form of annual environment reporting
and through liaison with the Airport Environment Officer.

Implementation of a Sustainability Strategy.
Landside Planning and Access
The road network and car parking are expected to require expansion in line with aviation
demand. In addition, development in the precincts could require upgraded access, with key
developments in the Master Plan being:
On Airport

Upgrade to terminal face road capacity to meet demand growth for all terminal
users including prioritising public transport users.

Upgrade of the primary access route, Holyman Avenue, to account for increased
terminal activity and future precinct developments, with priority given to traffic
related to airline departures. The upgrade could also be planned with appropriate
provision for cyclists and public transport.

Upgrade of Loop Road to meet applicable standards commensurate with the
increase in traffic volumes.

Growth of “at grade” car park facilities in line with forecast growth in demand.
External Road Network

Upgrade access to Tasman Highway and the access roundabout to provide
sufficient capacity for access to Airport land, subject to ongoing discussions with the
State.

Retention of secondary access locations with the Tasman Highway primarily to
service Airport development.
Beyond the forecast planning period, it is envisaged that a public access road connecting
Holyman Avenue through to Surf Road may be required as well as a bypass road of the
terminal precinct.
Indicative Implementation Program
HIAPL is committed to the aeronautical and commercial development of land at the Airport
in a planned and sensibly managed manner, in accordance with established Development
Guidelines prepared for each of the precincts, and the Airport Environment Strategy. When
appropriate, HIAPL will facilitate the establishment and growth of other businesses on the
Airport, by providing land, support and assistance in a manner that maximises the
opportunity for those businesses to operate in a sustainable manner.
During the initial planning period it is anticipated that development of land at Hobart Airport
will primarily occur on the western side of the runway, from the Tasman Highway to Surf
Road. Development will be staged to allow for the orderly provision of new infrastructure to
Page ix
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
meet demand for services in a manner which is both financially and environmentally
responsible.
The indicative implementation program for development of the Hobart Airport property is as
follows.
Initial planning period to 2014

Runway 12/30 will need to be rejuvenated potentially through the use of profiling
and surface enrichment spray as well as intensive crack sealing. It is envisaged that
this temporary treatment could be followed by a full overlay during this period, or
later between 2015 and 2020.

Development of a consolidated freight area to the north of the terminal in the vicinity
of the Toll Air Express facility. The apron could comprise three aircraft parking
stands, for two narrow-body Code C and 1 widebody Code D aircraft.

In the domestic terminal, an additional baggage reclaim facility could be provided at
the south end of the terminal, with redevelopment of the area where the existing
Qantas/Jetstar bag belt is located to provide the required space.

With additional baggage reclaim capacity, the international terminal area can be
reconfigured and retrofitted to accommodate commencement of regular
international passenger services. Given the lead time associated with preparing an
international facility to accommodate regular passenger operations, particularly in
terms of security, customs and border protection, and quarantine services, any refit
of the international terminal would need to occur at least 6 to 12 months prior to
commencement of such flight arrangements.

In addition to terminal reconfiguration, the passenger apron may require overlay and
strengthening to the requisite PCN load carrying capacity to accommodate larger
Code E aircraft. In addition, given the proposed finger pier to provide additional
capacity in the future, Taxiway Foxtrot will need to be realigned to provide sufficient
clearance around the potential pier and new stand arrangement. These works or
phases of these works could occur in the later 2015-2029 planning period.

In terms of terminal-based car parking, additional spaces will need to be provided to
accommodate forecast demand, meaning potential demolition of buildings including
the current HIAPL offices and a move of HIAPL offices to the former Alpha Flight
Services catering building.

Non-aeronautical development will be centred on existing developments in Precinct
2, including the new hotel and fuel station, and momentum generated by the
planned DFO and bulky goods development in Precinct 1. The western side of
Holyman Avenue, opposite Precinct 1, in Precinct 4 is expected to be well
developed for Commercial uses due to strong demand for development along this
main access point in the short-term. Towards the end of the initial planning period,
commercial development in Precincts 3 and 5 including office park-type uses is
envisaged, though the exact nature and scale of development will be determined by
the market at the time.

The road network will need to be augmented to align with aviation-related growth,
land use and related development strategies, and zoning for business and industry
development.
Balance of the forecast planning period 2015-2029

Development of the finger pier from the terminal and associated reconfiguration and
overlay of the central and southern portions of the existing passenger apron to
achieve the forecast demand of 8 narrow-body Code C stands and 1 wide-body
Code E stand.
Page x
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

Upgraded and expanded GA apron, including new pavement areas and hangarage
to the south of the terminal, as well as a revised landside / airside boundary to the
south and east of the existing Air BP facility.

In the longer term, the construction of a parallel taxiway along Runway 12/30 to the
runway ends, to provide additional runway and airfield capacity. The provision of
this type of infrastructure is highly dependent on commercial discussions with
airlines.

The proposed development of the Precincts will continue from 2015 to 2029. With
initial focus on development of land in proximity to Precincts 1 to 5, the second
phase of development is focused on key access routes and areas of highest
exposure including the Tasman Highway, Holyman Avenue and around the
Terminal Precinct.

Long term development of more remote precincts to the south of the airport is
envisaged in the last five years of the forecast planning period, possibly requiring a
public access road from Holyman Avenue to Surf Road.

Road improvements and capacity enhancements might include an upgrade to
Tasman Highway and the access roundabout to the Airport, duplication along
Holyman Avenue and an upgrade of Loop Road to meet appropriate engineering
standards.
Beyond the forecast planning period, infrastructure extensions might include extending the
runway itself, or providing short general aviation runway development with associated
taxiways. Neither of these developments is intended as part of the Master Plan and as such
these have only been described as options for a future time beyond 2029.
Page xi
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
1
Introduction
1.1
Background
Hobart Airport is the busiest airport in Tasmania and is the principal aviation gateway to the
city of Hobart and the southern Tasmanian region. The Airport is located 17 kilometres east
of Hobart, in the City of Clarence, as shown in Figure 2, and occupies approximately 565
hectares of land. The Airport is served by arterial roads linking it to the centre of Hobart and,
via the regional highway network, to other locations in the State.
Figure 2
Location of Hobart Airport
The Airport’s location, on the Seven Mile Beach perimeter between the waterways of Barilla
Bay and Frederick Henry Bay, minimises adverse community noise impacts because the
airport is situated away from higher density residential areas. Clarence City Council has
provided invaluable assistance in this aspect through the development control buffer around
the Airport included in its Planning Scheme.
Operated by Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (HIAPL), Hobart Airport is the major
domestic and international gateway to Tasmania for commercial aircraft. The airport has a
single runway system – Runway 12/30 of 2,251 metres in length - that is served by two
taxiways. These in turn are linked by additional taxiways to apron areas to the east and
south of the terminal.
The airport has a combined domestic and international terminal, with car parking located to
the west of the terminal.
J:\206117-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\0402-22 DRAFT RESUBMISSION\SUPERSEDED\0029E 2009 FINALMP.DOC
Page 1
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 3
Hobart Airport from Tower Hill
Additional aviation uses at the airport include air freight and GA hangars, aviation fuel
supplies, Air Traffic Control (ATC) and Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (ARFFS),
the latter two being operated by Airservices Australia.
The Airport is strategically located to serve many of the fastest growing residential areas in
the greater Hobart area. It is also ideally located on the State’s premier tourist road network.
As of January 2009, the Airport is served by four key passenger airlines: Qantas, Jetstar,
Virgin Blue and Tiger Airways. These airlines carried approximately 1.82 million passengers
through the Airport in the year ended 31st December 2008, on around 13,900 aircraft
movements.
1.2
History
The Hobart region was served initially by Cambridge Airport until 1956, when Hobart Airport,
at Llanherne, was commissioned as the primary Regular Public Transport (RPT) airport.
Hobart Airport’s original domestic terminal building and runway were commissioned in 1956,
and were re-developed in 1976. An international terminal was commissioned in 1983 to
provide facilities for the then trans-Tasman B727 service. The airport was further upgraded
in 1985 to B767 standard, with capability for handling weight restricted B747 operations. At
the same time the international terminal building was extended, additional apron and car
park facilities were constructed, and the runway was extended to its current length of 2,251
metres.
The Federal Airports Corporation assumed ownership and control of both Hobart and
Cambridge Airports in January 1988 but sold Cambridge Airport in March 1993. Under the
terms of sale, Cambridge Airport must be operated as an airport until June 2004. This
requirement has now expired though Cambridge Airport, located to the north west of Hobart
Airport, remains as a General Aviation (GA) facility.
Hobart Airport was privatised by the Commonwealth in June 1998, with HIAPL entering into
a 99 year land lease with the Commonwealth Government (50 years plus a 49 year option)
at that time. HIAPL bought the improvements and the business at this time.
The Airport has been operated by HIAPL since 1998, originally with a mix of international
and local owners, but under full State ownership from 2004 as component part of
Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd (Tasports).
Page 2
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
In 2007, the State Government of Tasmania took the decision to sell HIAPL to its current
owners.
Since January 2008, HIAPL has been owned by the Tasmanian Gateway Consortium - this
consortium comprises Macquarie Global Infrastructure Fund III, a Macquarie-managed
unlisted infrastructure fund with a 50.1% interest in Tasmanian Gateway Consortium, and
Retirement Benefits Fund Board, a Tasmanian superannuation fund with a 49.9% interest in
Tasmanian Gateway Consortium. The Airport is managed on behalf of the shareholders by
Macquarie Specialised Asset Management Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Macquarie
Group.
Under the terms of the land lease, HIAPL is mandated to operate the airport, to effect capital
improvements in accordance with the Airport Master Plan, protect the environment and
maintain the Airport in good repair.
Since entering into the lease, HIAPL has undertaken a number of developments at the
Airport.
Recent major developments include:

An $8 million upgrade of the departures lounge, the associated concourses, the
public car park and car rental facilities, which was completed in December 2005.

An $18 million redevelopment and integration of the international and domestic
terminals, including central check-in hall, a baggage hall and a checked baggage xray screening system built between the international and domestic terminals and
completed at the end of 2007.

Opening of the Virgin Blue Freight Terminal in January 2007.

Opening of the hotel and fuel station in 2008.

Planning approval for a 10,000m2 Direct Factory Outlet (DFO) and over 30,000m2 of
homemaker retail centre east of Holyman Avenue.
Figure 4
1.3
Check-In Hall Redevelopment – Planned and Actual
HIAPL
HIAPL’s Airport operations include the provision of aeronautical services and facilities,
including the following core Airport infrastructure:

Extensive runway, taxiway and apron infrastructure to cater for up to 747 size
aircraft with weight restrictions.

An integrated domestic and international terminal facility, with the two buildings
connected by a central check in hall, a baggage hall and a checked baggage x-ray
screening system, which links the two terminals into one facility.
Page 3
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

The Australian air Express and Toll Air freight facilities. These buildings, owned
respectively by HIAPL and Toll Air, cater for southern Tasmania’s air-freight needs.

The former Ansett Air Cargo freight facility leased by HIAPL to Sky Trek Pty Ltd.
This facility has been extensively expanded and modernised to provide further
commercial general aviation capacity.

The Tasair administration, passenger reception and pilot training facility, and
associated general aviation hangar. These facilities, substantially owned by HIAPL,
are some of the most modern in Tasmania, and cater for general aviation, regular
passenger transport traffic, and other freight and charter operations.

The former Alpha Flight Services flight catering kitchen, constructed in 2001, and
purchased by HIAPL in 2003. The building contains modern offices, staff amenities,
and substantial chillers, a blast freezer, storage rooms, food preparation areas,
kitchens, bakery and apron frontage.

Road, parking, sewerage, drainage, electrical and telecommunications reticulation.
1.4
Airlines and Tenants
Other facilities and services provided by HIAPL and its tenants include car rental, freight
forwarding and logistics, air traffic control, emergency, meteorological, customs,
immigration, and quarantine services as described below:

Passenger airlines – Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin Blue and Tiger Airways;

Antarctic operator – Skytraders;

Freight operators – Australia air Express and Toll Air Express;

Tasair including general aviation pilot training school, general aviation aircraft
maintenance and hangarage, intrastate general aviation regular passenger
transport, and charter services;

Rotor Lift including helicopter rescue service, rotary pilot training school, helicopter
charter services);

Sky Trek including general aviation hangarage, flight planning facilities, charter
services;

Rental car companies – Hertz, Avis, Budget, Thrifty, Europcar, Red Spot and a
number of “second tier” operators;

Camper van rental companies – Britz Maui, Apollo and Cruisin’ Tasmania;

Chauffeured Cars & Coaches, Tasmanian National Tours, Wrest Point Casino
(limousine hire);

HIAPL – general and valet undercover car parking;

BP Australia – fuel storage and re-fuelling;

Airservices Australia – air traffic control & fire fighting and rescue services;

Bureau of Meteorology (weather forecasting and flight information);

Australian Customs Service, Department of Immigration, Multicultural and
Indigenous Affairs, AQIS for international passenger processing;

Quarantine Tasmania - primary industry inspections;

Delaware North - bar and coffee shop, café;

Australian Way - newsagency and Tasmanian gift shop;

HIAPL - airport maintenance facilities;
Page 4
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

HIAPL - telecommunications reticulation, electrical reticulation, emergency power
generation;

HIAPL - water storage and reticulation, sewerage reticulation, wastewater
treatment;

Commonwealth Bank LTD (ATM);

Smarte Carte Australia Pty Ltd (baggage trolleys);

Telstra Ltd (public telephones);

Sultan Holdings as the operator of the new hotel; and

Fuel Station operated by BP.
Page 5
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
2
Development Objectives
First and foremost, HIAPL recognises that the Airport must be sensibly planned and
developed to meet future aeronautical use. HIAPL is committed to planning appropriate
infrastructure to meet changing demands and to provide convenient and modern facilities for
airlines and their passengers, the general and freight aviation community, local and regional
communities, and tenants and their employees.
In addition, HIAPL recognises that it needs to be a good neighbour by being appreciative
understanding and sensitive to environmental requirements, and State and Local planning
considerations beyond the Airport boundaries.
Hobart Airport is an essential part of the Tasmanian economy and will continue to support
regional and economic growth through adding value to business partners and commercial
developments. HIAPL is committed to meeting the present and future needs of airport
customers, governments, businesses, and the community, in a safe, efficient, financially and
environmentally sustainable manner.
2.1
Vision
HIAPL’s vision for Hobart Airport is as “a commercially vibrant gateway and a dynamic force
for Tasmanian business.”
As the Airport operator, HIAPL focuses on the provision of quality services and facilities to
customers and the maximisation of value to all airport businesses and new commercial
customers, for the benefit of stakeholders and the community.
2.2
Development Objectives
HIAPL's key development objectives for the Airport are as follows:

To plan and deliver appropriate aeronautical development to meet both
growth and change in aviation demand over time.
In anticipation of continued growth in the domestic air market and with aspirations
for international traffic in the future, HIAPL intends to invest in appropriate airside,
terminal and landside infrastructure to meet demand and provide for safe and
efficient operations. These developments are described in Section 7 and include
inter alia:

o
Extension of parallel taxiways to provide greater capacity on Runway 12/30.
o
Apron overlay and expansion to provide a minimum 8 Code C, and 1 Code
E aircraft stands to accommodate future passenger demand.
o
Terminal expansion, including provision of central pier to serve new stands.
o
Extension of road network and expansion of car parking to meet future
growth.
o
Consolidation of freight and business / GA operations into two areas, with
all freight operations to the north of the terminal and business / GA
operations to the south. This rationalises the existing situation of having
these two different market sectors split between north and south depending
on operator.
To continue, encourage and grow Australia’s Antarctic air link:
Hobart Airport is proud to be part of a new era of Antarctic transport, with
Skytraders operating the only international air service currently from Hobart,
conducting regular summer flights to Antarctica on behalf of the Australian Antarctic
Division using an Airbus A319.
Page 6
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
HIAPL is keen to provide for and promote this Antarctic link and in negotiation with
Skytraders to further Australia’s scientific exploration in this region.
HIAPL also intends to actively seek and attract other links with Antarctica and the
operations and activity associated with those links.

To develop the Airport’s infrastructure in a safe, efficient and cost effective
manner in support of the development of Airport land and existing facilities.
Safety and security at airports is paramount.
HIAPL will continue to ensure security standards meet and exceed Government
regulation, whilst also ensuring safety is the number one priority for location,
construction and operation of existing and / or new facilities.
Where possible, HIAPL will seek to maximise the utilisation of existing assets, with
the heart of aviation activity continuing to be the existing terminal and incremental
expansion of this facility and airside and landside infrastructure centred around it.

To create an airport that is modern, convenient and high quality which thus
creates a positive first impression for visitors.
Recognising that the Airport provides many people’s first impression of Hobart,
HIAPL has already moved towards modernising and improving facilities, including
the upgrade of the terminal and car parks, incorporating the latest in innovation and
design. This will continue with the developments proposed in this latest Master
Plan allowing for more efficient operation on the airside, continued expansion of the
terminal to meet not only domestic growth but anticipating international services.
Airport terminals have, over recent decades, changed from being institutional to
being friendly and customer-orientated. New terminals have been designed to
focus on service and entertainment, with high quality retail, restaurants, and hotels
interconnected with the terminal, all for the convenience of the traveller. These
trends are reflected in the design of the terminal and the planning of the commercial
precinct. In addition, the move to power-in, push-back operations on the airside
allows for the possible introduction of aerobridges potentially providing a higherlevel of comfort and Level of Service.
In addition, building design is moving towards low energy consumption and
sustainable or ‘green’ solutions including the harvesting of rain water for grey water
reuse, reduced use of artificial light through the use of skylights, and so on. HIAPL
will look to incorporate Ecologically Sustainable Design (ESD) in new build as and
when opportunity allows.
For precincts away from the terminal, HIAPL is proposing appropriate high-quality
development with sensitive landscaping. Uses have been grouped to provide
synergies and to allow rationalisation and optimisation of both aviation and nonaviation related uses.

To plan and deliver viable and sustainable commercial precincts on Airport
land in accordance with requirements under the Airports Act for the benefit of
the local economy
HIAPL’s first priority is as an airport operator and as a consequence HIAPL is fully
cognisant of its responsibility to maintain, improve and deliver high quality
aeronautical infrastructure and services. As HIAPL seeks to satisfy demand for
retail and commercial offerings, this will drive opportunities for growth, contain
charges to airlines and passengers, and stimulate growth in tourism.
Without this diversification, HIAPL could experience difficulty in meeting the need to
fund infrastructure expansion, maintenance and replacement. Greater commercial
Page 7
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
revenue will drive opportunities for growth, containing charges to airlines and
passengers, and stimulating growth in tourism.
HIAPL recognises that commercial development needs to be planned in an
environmentally sound manner with sufficient regard to the requirements and
imperatives of surrounding local communities, whose development and prosperity
can be both positively enhanced or negatively impacted by commercial
developments on airport land.
As such, commercial development on airport needs to be sensitive to local needs
and HIAPL’s plans reflect this. Indeed, the strong economic benefits associated
with continued development of the Airport are described in Section 3 below.

To engage stakeholders and the community in an inclusive, transparent and
accountable manner.
The planning and consultative process employed for this Master Plan has been
undertaken in accordance with the Airports Act 1996. Section 5 describes the aims,
objectives and outcomes of the consultation process, including the 60 business
days public consultation period. The proposals contained herein have been the
subject to formal discussion with key stakeholders and have been presented to all
forms of government, numerous stakeholders and the public. This Master Plan
encompasses the outcomes of these discussions and provides responses to
submissions received as part of public consultation process. All submissions and
HIAPL’s responses to these submissions have been provided in the certificate
accompanying the draft Master Plan given to the Minister. The certificate details
how the comments made have been addressed in the Master Plan and includes a
list of respondents.
HIAPL acknowledges the regional and local significance of the Hobart Airport, and
will continue to consult with appropriate government agencies, the community, and
interest groups.
In addition, HIAPL will ensure developments proposed at the Airport are assessed
with consideration given to wider economic, social, planning and environmental
issues.
Planning for future infrastructure and development at the Airport as described in this Master
Plan is based on these objectives.
Page 8
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
3
Economic Benefit
HIAPL commissioned an independent economic benefit analysis as part of the Master Plan
study. This study has indicated the considerable impact the Airport has and will continue to
have on the State economy.
This assessment estimated the contribution of Airport development out to 2029 as per the
aeronautical and land use plans set out in Figure 1, assuming all projections to be
commercially viable and all development providing a contribution to the state economy.
The analysis converted proposed development and activities on Airport land into economic
stimuli for low and high development scenarios, as summarised below:

The proposed capital spending on site, which includes infrastructure spending and
building development across the terminal and commercial precincts, totalling $492
million over a 2009 to 2029 period for a low development scenario, and potentially
$1,157 million for a high development scenario.

Terminal and tenant operations, which includes the economic contributions made by
the terminal operation, plus each of the tenants in the commercial precincts as they
grow and develop business over time. These estimates have been developed by
converting estimated floorspace to employment and subsequently in terms of value
added to the economy.
Under the low scenario 294,500m2 of commercial floorspace is estimated to be developed
over the 2009-29 period. This floorspace, along with terminal based activity, is expected to
grow employment at the Airport from 250 currently to 2,120, lifting the direct contribution in
value added to the economy from its current level of $25 million to $175 million.
The respective figures for the high scenario at 2029 are 373,000m2 of development, 3,130
jobs on Airport and a direct contribution to the economy of $232 million.
Figure 5
Low Development Scenario - Direct Value Added To Economy
Page 9
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 6
High Development Scenario - Direct Value Added To Economy
After accounting for the all of the buyer supplier linkages that emanate from operations at
the Airport, the economic contributions are expected to manifest in significantly larger total
indirect impacts in the Tasmanian and Greater Hobart economies. In fact the total economic
contribution is expected to grow as shown in the table below. These benefits are
anticipated to occur across a range of industries.
Tasmanian Economic Contribution
Low Scenario
• Current levels
• 2029 levels
High scenario
• Current levels
• 2029 levels
Greater Hobart Economic Contribution
Value Added
Employment
Value Added
Employment
$50 million p.a.
$348 million p.a.
500 jobs
4,150 jobs
$45 million p.a.
$317 million p.a.
450 jobs
3,790 jobs
$50 million p.a.
$466 million p.a.
500 jobs
6,200 jobs
$45 million p.a.
$426 million p.a.
450 jobs
5,700 jobs
Table 2 Economic Impact Analysis
Employment at the Airport is estimated to increase from 0.3% of total employment in
Greater Hobart to between 1.4% (low scenario) and 2% (high scenario) in 2029.
As share of Tasmanian employment, employment at the airport is estimated to grow from
0.1% to 0.6% (low scenario) and 0.9% (high scenario) in 2029.
Contributions to Gross State Product (GSP) are projected to increase from 0.2% currently to
between 0.4% (low scenario) and 0.6% (high scenario) of GSP by 2029.
Using the relationship between State and Greater Hobart employment, it is estimated that
the contributions to Gross Regional Product (GRP) of Greater Hobart will grow from
approximately 0.6% in 2009 to approximately 1.3% (low scenario) and 1.8% (high scenario)
in 2029.
The Airport also contributes to the extent that air passenger and freight movements trigger
investment and productive activities in other industries.
Page 10
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
4
The Master Plan Process
The 2009 Master Plan for Hobart Airport is presented in Figure 1 and Appendix A at A3 size.
4.1
Previous Master Plans
The 2009 Master Plan is based on almost 20 years of prior planning and reflects the growth
and evolution of the airport since the first Master Plan for the airport, developed by the
Federal Airports Corporation in 1991.
This initial plan was revised and updated in 1995 and 1997.
Following privatisation of Hobart Airport in June 1998, HIAPL progressed the 1999 Airport
Master Plan (previously prepared by the Federal Airports Corporation) and this was
approved by the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services. This Plan was the first
implemented pursuant to the Airports Act 1996 and was in turn updated by HIAPL in 2004.
The 2009 Master Plan aligns with and updates the 2004 Plan. Key differences between the
2004 Master Plan and this 2009 version are primarily in relation to land use, the
environment and surface access and can be described as follows:

Forecast growth – Passenger demand in 2029 is now forecast to be 4.25 million
passengers. Revised freight and GA requirements also need to be accommodated.
As such, this Master Plan incorporates associated aeronautical infrastructure
expansion and enhancement to meet this demand including:
o
A revised passenger apron around a central terminal pier;
o
An upgraded and expanded international and domestic terminal; and
o
A consolidated northern freight and southern General Aviation (GA) apron.

Zones and precincts - The 2009 Master Plan identifies 10 precincts, which is an
increase in detail when compared to the four land use zones identified in the 2004
Master Plan. This increase in detail reflects a level of refinement over and above
the potential uses identified in 2004 and also the requirements of the Airports Act
1996 and the direction of the Aviation Green Paper for “greater transparency and
certainty about future land uses at airports”.

2005 Airport Environment Strategy
The preliminary versions of the 2005 Airport Environment Strategy (AES) and the
2004 Master Plan were prepared in parallel in 2003 and 2004. However the AES
was revised after the Master Plan had already been approved, to improve the
strategy in a number of areas. This included incorporation of information from a
comprehensive vegetation assessment that was undertaken in 2005, resulting in a
considerable overall increase in the size of green zones on the site. The 2004
Master Plan therefore does not reflect the same areas as the 2005 AES. In the
2009 Master Plan, the 2005 AES areas are the green zones for the site.

Airport Access
This Master Plan proposes an upgrade of the primary access route, Holyman
Avenue, to account for increased terminal activity and future precinct developments,
with priority given to traffic related to airline departures. The upgrade could also be
planned with appropriate provision for cyclists and public transport.
The secondary access from the Tasman Highway to Loop Road is retained. HIAPL
has committed to continuing discussions with DIER on its future use and impacts.
Given potential use in the future, allowance should be made for upgrading of Loop
Road to meet applicable standards commensurate with any increase in traffic
volumes.
Page 11
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

Land Acquisition
As foreshadowed in the 2004 Master Plan, HIAPL recognises the need to plan for
future growth and accordingly acquired parcels of land on the south east and south
west corners of the Airport site, adjoining Pittwater and Surf Roads.
The purchase of land has been undertaken with regard to due process and no
further acquisition is proposed in this Master Plan.
In addition to the above planning changes, this Master Plan takes account of the changing
regulatory context and policy revisions since 2004, including

Changes to Consultation Protocol and Public Comment Period: The public
consultation period has changed to 60 business days from 90 days. This change
has been implemented in this Master Plan process for Hobart and is discussed in
more detail in Section 5.

Access to and format of planning documents.

Compliance of non-aeronautical development with safety requirements i.e.
safeguarding to ensure developments do not infringe Obstacle Limitation Surfaces,
radar or ATC sightlines or operations.

Endorsement of the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) now requires
for State and Local Government to have sighted the ANEF noise modelling and
have had the opportunity to comment. HIAPL held a stakeholder workshop on
noise on 19th March 2009 for this purpose, and has also received and responded to
written submissions as part of the ANEF endorsement process.
4.2
2009 Master Plan
The Airports Act 1996 outlines the requirements for core regulated or joint user airports –
Hobart, like Melbourne and Sydney, is a core regulated airport – and airport lessee
companies, such as HIAPL, in terms of commitments to Master Plans, Major Development
Plans (MDPs), building approvals and regulations pertaining to land use, as well as planning
and building controls at these airports.
In accordance with requirements of the Airports Act 1996, this 2009 Master Plan establishes
long term planning objectives for Hobart Airport and provides a framework to guide
appropriate aeronautical and non-aeronautical development.
The Plan defines a physical layout for the Airport for the next 20 years (2009 to 2029),
allocating future Airport land usage based on an assessment of present and forecast
aviation activities, the environment, other demands and wider community expectations.
In accordance with the Airports Act 1996, this Master Plan provides the framework for
Airport development for a period of 20 years up to 2029 - the forecast planning period. In
this Plan, reference is also made to the initial forecast period. This is a reference to the five
year period from 2009 to 2014, when the Plan is again due for review.
On the particular matter of aircraft noise exposure, however, this Master Plan goes beyond
the forecast planning period, recognising that development or activity outside the Airport
legitimately has an outlook considerably longer than twenty years.
In order to meet the requirements of the Airports Act 1996, in relation to the preparation of
the Master Plan, HIAPL is required to:

state its development objectives for the Airport – as per Section 2;

assess the future needs of civil aviation and other users of the Airport, for services
and facilities relating to the Airport – as per Sections 7 and 9;
Page 12
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

set out its proposals for land use and related development of the Airport site, where
the proposals embrace airside, landside, surface access and land planning/zoning
aspects – as per Sections 11 and 13;

present noise exposure level forecasts (ANEF) for the areas adjacent to the Airport
– as per Section 8;

present plans for managing noise intrusion in areas forecast to be subject to
exposure above the significant ANEF level;

assess environmental issues that might reasonably be expected to be associated
with implementation of the Master Plan – as per Section 12;

set out management plans for dealing with such environmental issues and plans for
ameliorating or preventing environmental impacts.
To meet the requirements of the Airports Regulations 1997, made under the Airports Act
1996 in relation to the preparation of the Master Plan, HIAPL is required to:

address any obligations passed to it by the Commonwealth in relation to leases on
the Airport in existence before 11th June 1998; and

address any interests in Airport land that were in existence before 11th June 1998.
The leases on the Airport in existence before 11th June 1998 and still current are:

Qantas Domestic Terminal Lease (“DTL”);

Qantas Aircraft Waste Facility;

Airservices Australia Facilities - Control Tower, Fire Station and Car Park,
Radio/Electrical Maintenance Workshop, Gym/SAR Store, Fire Training Ground,
DVOR/DME, Localiser, Glidepath, SGS, Course Bars and Markers; and

Bureau of Meteorology - Main Building, Instrument Site (west), Instrument Site (east
–Anemometer).
The Master Plan fully recognises the operation of these leases, and is to no detriment to the
operation of the leases.
Qantas and HIAPL are in the final stages of reaching mutual agreement for the surrender of
the DTL, which otherwise expires in 2011.
HIAPL has agreed with the Bureau of Meteorology that development that might affect the
operation of instruments in the west site (i.e. in Precinct 9) will be preceded by adequate
time for new instruments to be established at the east site and a sufficient overlap of
operation of the two sites to confirm continuity of records.
The Master Plan creates no effect on the Qantas waste facility, the Airservices Australia
facilities or the Bureau of Meteorology building.
To the best of HIAPL’s knowledge only the following may represent interests for the
purposes of the Regulations:

an easement for Surf Road;

a pipeline easement along the Tasman Highway boundary;

existence of the following trunk and other services:
o
Telstra East Coast and Seven Mile Beach optic fibres;
o
Telstra incoming optic fibre to Customs Kennel;
o
Aurora optic fibre along Holyman Avenue;
o
Qantas Diversity optic fibre;
o
Water re-use inbound and outbound lines along Holyman Avenue;
Page 13
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
o
Airservices Australia – numerous communications;
o
Incoming high voltage at airport metering point (Aurora);
o
Incoming high voltage along Pittwater Road; and
o
Numerous Aurora poles and associated assets.
The Master Plan fully recognises the existence of these interests and is no detriment to
continuation of the level of accommodation provided for these interests prior to 11th June
1998.
Sinclair Creek flows across the Airport. The Southern Water Wastewater Treatment Plant
relies on Sinclair Creek for acceptance of treated wastewater in certain circumstances under
the Environment Protection Notice governing its operation. No other interests associated
with this water course have been identified by title or any other searching.
Proclamation under Section 9A and 52A of the State Roads and Jetties Act 1935, registered
24th June 1997 has the following effects:

Section 9A provides that the Governor may, by proclamation, declare – (a) the
intended new line of a State highway or subsidiary road; or (b) the intended line of a
new State highway or subsidiary road).

Section 52A provides that the Governor may, by proclamation, declare any State
highway or subsidiary road, or part thereof to be a "limited access road". A
proclamation under this section may be combined with a proclamation under section
9A.
HIAPL recognises that any such declarations would modify any affected provisions of the
Master Plan.
Public consultation, title and other searching in preparation of the Master Plan identified no
other interests and so there are no other interests to the best of HIAPL’s knowledge.
4.3
State and Local Context
Airport planning requires extensive liaison and coordination between HIAPL, the
Commonwealth, State and Local governments, whose responsibilities impinge on, or are
affected by, the operation of the Airport. In the case of Hobart Airport, their mutual interest
considerations include:

land acquisition;

effects on State and Local government land use planning and development policies;

environmental considerations (including aircraft noise, flora, fauna, cultural,
heritage, drainage and wastewater issues);

airport access; and

the provision of telecommunications, water and electricity services.
Hobart Airport’s land is owned by the Australian Commonwealth Government. Therefore,
pursuant to S112 of the Airports Act 1996, new developments are generally not subject to
the statutory State and Local Government planning and environmental approval process.
However, any developments at the Airport are controlled through the detailed requirements
of the Airports Act 1996 including specific and stringent environmental and building
controls, and compliance with the Master Plan and the Airport Environment Strategy. In
addition, HIAPL recognises the desire of the Commonwealth Government as reflected in the
Aviation Green Paper that “appropriate balance is maintained between the social, economic
and environmental needs of the community and the development of the [Airport land]“.
Page 14
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
4.3.1
State Policy
The Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority (STCA) is an organisation comprising 12
Councils to facilitate to greater co-operation and collaboration in the southern Tasmanian
region and to facilitate joint action on opportunities for both regional development as well as
issues of environmental protection and social improvement.
The STCA Southern Region Overview Report - Transport, 2007, is the second of two key
reports informing development of the Southern Integrated Transport Plan which aims to
provide a strategic, coordinated framework for planning and managing the region’s transport
system over the next 20 years.
The report acknowledges the role Hobart Airport plays in terms of tourism and economic
activity and the growth in airport-associated activity since 1995. In this regard, the report
acknowledges that as Tasmania’s major tourist gateway, linkages from Hobart Airport in
Clarence through to Hobart CBD must be enhanced as this connection is of significance to
the entire southern region of Tasmania.
Key strategic issues which relate to development of Hobart Airport include:

Linking the planning of future industrial land to strategic transport infrastructure and
networks; and

An improved understanding of intrastate tourist movements in order to inform
transport and tourist planning.
4.3.2
Local Policy
The City of Clarence is a strong and active supporter of the continued development of the
Airport. For its part HIAPL acknowledges that the continued support of the Council is critical
to future success.
Clarence City Council Planning Scheme, Amended 2009
As already noted above, Hobart Airport remains outside the formal planning jurisdiction of
the City of Clarence. The City of Clarence recognises this and this is reflected in the zoning
of the 2007 Planning Scheme.
In addition, Council provides for a development control buffer around the Airport in the
Planning Scheme. This allows for long-term protection of flight paths into and out of Airport
from inappropriate development, particularly residential development, and also reflects
noise exposure from aircraft movements and “shielding people from such noise by ensuring
appropriate noise attenuation measures.” This buffer zone is shown in Section 8.
Clarence recognises the economic importance of the Airport and is a key stakeholder in
helping the Airport remain curfew free.
In the Planning Scheme, the Airport is identified as a fundamental part of the economic
fabric of Clarence, with associated business to be encouraged on airport land. A stated
objective is:
To encourage a range of businesses associated with Airport activities or otherwise
benefiting from close proximity to tourism and air freight.
The Scheme also identifies the airport as part of a network of strategic transport linkages.
Development is to be encouraged along transport corridors between the City centre, key
activity centres and Hobart as part of the Hobart Gateway Strategy.
HIAPL has considered the zone definitions and uses Clarence currently uses in its 2007
Planning Scheme in developing this Master Plan and has focussed most of its land use
alignments with Clarence, where alignment can be achieved. The exceptions being for land
required for aeronautical or aviation-related use.
Page 15
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Clarence City Council Strategic Plan 2006-2011
The Clarence Strategic Plan identifies Council’s Vision, Mission and Principles for 20062011. The plan is based around the five key themes of Communities and People, City
Future, Natural Environment, Infrastructure, and Governance.
A critical objective of the strategy is to encourage a broad base of economic growth.
Development at Hobart Airport is identified as a key opportunity to promote appropriate
commercial, industrial and business opportunities within Clarence.
Page 16
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
5
Consultation Process
5.1
Overview
The Airports Act 1996 requires a consultation process to be undertaken to ensure the 2009
Master Plan is relevant and reflects the realistic expectations of local community, regional
and Airport stakeholders.
A program of formal consultation was established during the preparation of the Master Plan,
which included a wide range of industry stakeholders and representatives from Federal,
State and Local Government.
The objective of the consultation process was to:

Create a conduit for early and ongoing information exchange;

Gain different perspectives;

Identify potential for misunderstanding, disparity and disagreement;

Ensure an informed understanding with regard to proposed developments; and

Demonstrate a commitment to transparency and accountability.
HIAPL has sought to engage with stakeholders over and above the requirements of the Act
through technical briefings prior to the public consultation period as well as a public
information session and a number of stakeholder meetings and workshops during the
consultation phase.
The Master Plan consultation described below represents only a part of ongoing and
continuous engagement between HIAPL and key stakeholders and the community.
5.2
Prior to the Public Consultation Period
5.2.1
Overview
At the commencement of the planning process in January 2009, HIAPL informed a range of
commercial and government stakeholders of the commencement of the revision of the 2004
Master Plan, and informed them of the intention to enter into public consultation and submit
the draft Master Plan to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development
and Local Government for approval.
This communication also informed stakeholders of opportunities to input into the planning
process and timeframes for consultation. Ongoing informal contact was maintained with
Federal Government organisations, municipalities and industry as required throughout the
development of the Plan.
Additionally, three technical briefings were provided to describe the concepts in the Master
Plan. The forums created the opportunity for these organisations to input into the outcomes
and objectives of the Plan and identify points for consideration in the development of the
Plan. The forums were designed to address technical details associated with aeronautical
planning, noise modelling, commercial land use planning and environmental impacts.
5.2.2
Aeronautical Planning
The aeronautical planning workshop was held on 18th March 2009 and was designed to
outline the preliminary draft planning and to discuss the implications with the relevant
stakeholders. Attendees included representatives from Federal, State and Local
Government organisations, airlines and tenants.
The half-day session presented the stakeholder engagement process and five design
options for the preliminary draft aeronautical plan.
The facilitated session identified a number of points that contributed to the development of
the Master Plan, including:
Page 17
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

Selection of the preferred passenger apron design – power-in, push-back stands;

Further details regarding the traffic and demand forecasting;

Location and discussion of key elements, including the tower, heliport, apron stand
configurations, fire station, outbound baggage room sizing and the wastewater
treatment works;

Further details regarding the runway length and analysis; and

The lead-time required to reconfigure the proposed international area for Federal
agencies to support scheduled international traffic.
All of the above issues are addressed in this Master Plan document.
Meeting minutes were provided following the technical briefing for acceptance of validity and
attendees were provided further time to input into the plan. These minutes have been
provided to the Minister in accordance with Section 80(2) of the Airports Act 1996.
5.2.3
Noise Modelling
The noise modelling workshop, held on 19th March 2009, was designed to outline the
preliminary draft demand forecasting and associated noise modelling, and to discuss the
implications with the relevant stakeholders. Attendees included representatives from
Federal, State and Local Government organisations, airlines and tenants.
The half-day session presented the noise modelling undertaken for the updated 2009 plan
and compared this to the existing 2004 Master Plan. Noise modelling standards and
planning implications were outlined.
The facilitated session and following detailed consultation with relevant stakeholders
identified a number of points that influenced the development of the Master Plan, including:

Flight path assumptions for GA and helicopter aircraft;

Representation of noise modelling information to make it more accessible to
interpret technically;

Flight tracking technology being installed in Hobart later in 2009 discussed.
Precision associated with the technology likely to increase the accuracy of the flight
tracks for the 2014 Master Plan.
Meeting minutes were provided following the meeting for acceptance of validity and
5.2.4
Commercial Land Use Planning and Environmental Management
A separate workshop to discuss commercial planning and environmental impacts was held
on 4th June 2009. The forum presented the outcomes of the commercial land use planning
as well as environmental impacts and mitigation to Federal, State and Local Government
representatives to inform them of planned developments. Attendees included
representatives from Federal, State and Local Government organisations, airlines and
tenants.
Key issues for consideration included:

Commercial land use and development planning; and

Environmental impact and mitigation.
The facilitated session and following detailed consultation with relevant stakeholders
identified a number of points that influenced the development of the Master Plan, including:

Previous farming of land which is now home to Poa grasslands;
Page 18
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

Flood study and drainage related to DFO;

Road provision and trade waste removal;

Land uses in Precincts and economic benefits and demand associated with these;
and

Alignment of land uses with State and / or Local planning context.
Meeting minutes were provided following the meeting for acceptance of validity and
5.2.5
Additional Consultation
HIAPL met with Ministers and with their advisers during the course of the Master Plan
process to brief them on the Master Plan process and invite their representation at the
consultations described above. These meetings took place on the following dates:

23rd February 2009 - Minister for Planning (and Minister for Primary Industries, and
Water, and Minister for Energy and Resources), David Llewellyn, MP;

4th March 2009 - Minister for Economic Development, Michael Aird MLC; and

12th March 2009 - Minister for Infrastructure, Graeme Sturges, MP.
HIAPL also met with Clarence Council to brief them of the Master Plan process and
intended content on 9th April 2009. Attendees included Alderman Jock Campbell, Andrew
Paul, John Stevens and planner Dan Ford.
5.3
Public consultation phase
5.3.1
Overview
Under Section 79 of the Airports Act 1996, HIAPL is required to provide a preliminary
version of the draft Master Plan for public comment for 60 business days.
Section 79 states that HIAPL must report all comments received and provide copies of
comments received to the Minister and demonstrate due regard to those comments in
preparing the draft plan.
Establishment of public consultation and process
5.3.2
Prior to the public consultation phase, HIAPL undertook the following:

Established dedicated communication channels for community input, including a
dedicated 1800 number and e-mail address hobartairportmasterplan@arup.com;

Published a notice in The Mercury on 27th July 2009 advising that the preliminary draft
Master Plan was available for comment and how and where to view, obtain or purchase
a copy and make submissions;

Identified and contacted in writing key stakeholders including airlines and airport
tenants, Federal, State and Local Government and relevant community groups
informing them of the notice in The Mercury, and the commencement of the public
consultation process;

Placed a link to the preliminary draft Master Plan document and supporting information
on the Hobart Airport website (http://HIAPL.com/news.php);

Provided an information stand to communicate details associated with the preliminary
draft Master Plan in the Airport terminal along with a locked submissions box, for the
duration of the comment period. This stand included a summary poster, Master Plan
map and a copy of the preliminary draft Master Plan. HIAPL’s master planning
Page 19
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
consultant also manned this stand on 21st August 2009 to answer questions from the
general public.

Held a Public Information Session on 21st August 2009, providing a summary of the core
components of the Master Plan.

Held meetings with various stakeholders and a consultation forum on 2nd October 2009
with attendance by:

The Federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and
Local Government;

State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources;

State Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment;

State Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts;

Clarence City Council;

Hobart City Council;

Tourism Tasmania;

Tourism and Transport Forum; and

Tourism Industry Council Tasmania.
The preliminary draft Master Plan document was provided in digital format on the HIAPL
website and available at the information stand at the Airport in printed form.
Several channels for feedback were provided for the public. Respondents could provide
input by letter, email or phone. As described above, a dedicated email address and phone
number was established for information to be provided regarding the plan.
5.3.3
Following public consultation process
Following the public consultation process, all submissions were considered in the further
preparation of the Master Plan.
Submissions were received from the following parties in relation to the following areas of
interest. All submissions and HIAPL’s responses to these submissions have been provided
in the certificate accompanying the draft Master Plan given to the Minister. The certificate
details how the comments made have been addressed in the Master Plan and includes a list
of respondents.

Air BP – comments in relation to AVGAS storage, access for refuelling vehicles
(landside and airside) and availability of real-time information for refuelling.

CASA – comments in relation to Runway End Safety Area dimensions, safety aspects of
building construction and lighting as well as management of fauna to minimise bird and /
or wildlife strike.

Airservices Australia – comments in relation to Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting
Services, navaids, aerodrome signage, the provision of a full length parallel taxiway, the
relationship between the described runway extension and nearby high terrain, the
potential for cross-runway provision, ANEF noise modelling and contamination of the
fire training area.

Clarence City Council – comments primarily in relation to the alignment of the Master
Plan with either the Clarence 2007 Planning Scheme or state and regional schemes,
economic impact, surface access and utilities provision. HIAPL met with the Mayor,
General Manager and Economic Development Officer on 26th October 2009 to clarify
Council's written comments. HIAPL has modified Section 11 to reflect the advancement
in understanding made on all sides at this important meeting.
Page 20
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

Tourism and Transport Forum – endorsement of the preliminary draft Master Plan and
comments reflecting the positive impact of the airport on tourism in Hobart and
Tasmania in general.

Tasmanian Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts (Tourism
Tasmania) – comments in relation to tourism forecasts and the need for hotel and
conference facilities in the Hobart region. The Master Plan proposes both hotel and
conference facilities.

Qantas – comments in relation to appropriately phased aeronautical development,
roads and parking, lower noise impacts and aircraft emissions associated with Required
Navigational Performance (RNP, as described in Section 8.5) and Ground Based
Augmentation Systems.

Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority – comments on alignment of the Master Plan
with local and regional or state planning and the types of development proposed.

Private submission – comments in relation to flight tracks over Richmond and aircraft
noise, as well as freight and surface access.

Tasmanian Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources – comments in relation
to the Airport’s future impact on road infrastructure such as the Tasman Highway, the
primary access roundabout to the Airport, secondary access from the Tasman Highway
to Loop Road as well as Pittwater Road.

Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment –
comments in relation to a draft proposal to rezone part of the green zone abutting
Precinct 4, to Commercial, and associated proposed revegetation and rehabilitation
initiatives.

Environment Protection Authority Tasmania – comments in relation noise, sewerage
and water quality.
Page 21
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
6
Air Traffic Forecasts
6.1
Current Operations
6.1.1
International Air Services
Skytraders offers the only international service currently from Hobart, conducting regular
summer flights to Antarctica on behalf of the Australian Antarctic Division using an Airbus
A319. The Airbus A319 aircraft takes just over four hours to travel the distance between the
two continents and is capable of returning back to Hobart should weather conditions prevent
safe landing. Skytraders operates from the international end of the terminal, also used by
Virgin Blue and Tiger. Skytraders flights are closed charter, non-public flights.
British Airways offers services to Hobart under code share arrangements with Qantas.
There are no other formal regular code sharing arrangements. A substantial number of
international airlines have rights to operate regular services to Hobart but do not currently
exercise these rights.
The Tradewinds charter organisation has previously operated a series of direct charters
from Singapore using Singapore Airlines 777 aircraft. There is also the occasional itinerant
international charter and there have been two flights this year by First Choice using a 757200.
Hobart has had intermittent services to New Zealand operated by a number of different
carriers since the early 1980s. The most recent of these services, operated by Air New
Zealand, was suspended in mid 1998.
6.1.2
Domestic Air Services
The Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) interstate jet service operators at Hobart are Virgin
Blue Airlines, Qantas Airways, Jetstar and Tiger Airways.
In addition, Tasair operates extensive GA and regional RPT services from the Airport.
Two routes, Hobart-Melbourne and Hobart-Sydney currently comprise more than 90% of
domestic and regional traffic, with connections also between Brisbane, Adelaide and
Canberra. Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) statistics
for January 2009 showed Hobart-Melbourne and Hobart-Sydney to be the 10th and 22nd
busiest domestic routes in Australia in January 2009.
At its peak in 2008, the Hobart-Brisbane route carried 10% of passengers to and from
Hobart and ranked in the top 40 busiest domestic routes in Australia. However, commercial
pressures forced Jetstar to stop its three-times weekly Hobart-Brisbane service and, in July
2008, this route dropped out of the 50 busiest routes in Australia.
As of January 2009, the Melbourne route comprises 64% of all domestic traffic whilst the
Sydney route comprises 27% of all traffic.
6.1.3
Air Freight
Hobart Airport is an important international and domestic air freight centre with the major
commodities handled including seafood, fruit and vegetables, flowers, newspapers and
livestock.
Since the demise of Ansett Air Freight in 2001, Australian air Express conducts national and
international air-freight operations out of two buildings at the southern end of the main car
park. It has bond storage and short term storage for domestic air freight consignments. Cool
rooms for the storage of such products as seafood and berries were constructed in the early
1990s. Australian air Express operates a B737 freighter on a near-daily basis at Hobart
Airport, supplemented on occasions by a B727-100 and a Metroliner.
In January 2007, Virgin Blue / Toll opened a 1,000m2 dedicated freight facility at Hobart
Airport, including a cool room for safe handling and preservation of perishable goods such
Page 22
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
as food and flowers. Virgin Blue / Toll’s freight facility is located north of the passenger
terminal.
In addition, Tasair Pty Ltd and Sky Trek Pty Ltd offer limited intra and interstate GA freight
services.
6.2
Demand since 2004
Figure 7 shows historic growth in passenger movement numbers at Hobart from 1997 to
2008 showing key milestones and their impact on air travel.
With the boom in the low-cost market - Virgin Blue filling the void of Ansett, then the
commencement of Jetstar and Tiger operations - growth at Hobart from 1.1 million
passengers in 2003 to approximately 1.82 million in 2008 represents an average compound
annual growth rate of almost 11% over the five year period.
2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600,000
Jetstar starts at
HBA 2004
Oil Price Rise
2004-2005
Annual Passengers
1,400,000
September
11th 2001
1,200,000
Bali Bomb
2002
1,000,000
Ansett Collapse
Virgin Blue
2001
starts at
HBA 2002
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
Figure 7
Historic Passenger Traffic
Figure 8 shows historic aircraft movements for the years 2004 to 2008. The dip in
passenger aircraft movements is not reflected in the steady growth in passenger numbers,
owing to higher seat capacities and increased load factors over the same period.
Air freight tonnage peaked at Hobart in the late 1980s. As per Figure 8, the number of
freight movements to and from Hobart has been declining gradually since 2004, from
around 800 movements in 2004 to around 550 in 2008, equivalent to a reduction from 2 to
1.5 movements per day. This decrease in pure freight movements is offset by increased
carriage of freight and goods in the bellyhold of passenger aircraft, though tonnage is not
anticipated to grow significantly from the current operation in the short-term.
GA movements have fallen from around 5,500 movements in 2004 to 4,500 in 2008 on
account of the general decline in GA activity. However, GA continues to be an important
component of Hobart’s traffic mix.
Page 23
Final
1 July 2010
2000000
20,000
1750000
17,500
1500000
15,000
1250000
12,500
1000000
10,000
750000
7,500
500000
5,000
250000
2,500
0
6.3
Passngers
Passenger Mvts
Freight Mvts
GA Mvts
2004
Figure 8
Aircraft Movements
Passengers
HIAPL
2005
2006
2007
2008
Historic Passenger and Aircraft Movement Traffic (2004- 2008)
Forecasting
The future volume of aircraft traffic and the mix of aircraft types using an airport have
implications for both:

Physical planning – how to accommodate aircraft and passengers in terms of
airside, terminal and landside infrastructure; and

Noise exposure – different aircraft have different noise exposure metrics depending
on engine type and performance.
As such, forecasting forms the foundation on which all airport Master Plans are based,
setting a framework for understanding aviation-related development and its implications,
including for noise.
As required the Airports Act 1996, this Master Plan presents potential development and
physical planning of the Airport for the forecast planning period 2009-2029. However, for
aircraft noise exposure, the Master Plan also considers the longer term when the Airport is
operating at higher capacity, to recognise that development such as growth of residential
areas or commercial and industrial activity outside the Airport boundary legitimately has an
outlook considerably longer than twenty years and needs to be planned with reference to
aircraft noise. In addition, it is critical to the future functioning of the Airport that it is not
unduly constrained by development in the future, both in terms of noise and in terms of
aircraft and public safety2.
Accordingly, this Master Plan forecasts a “Long Range” time horizon for noise but
incorporates a series of a sense checks, recognising that:
2

the numbers of passengers being forecast must be sensible and realistic for Hobart
and Tasmania;

the demand forecast falls within the capacity of the single runway system; and

the amount of traffic is consistent with forecasts for other Airports with which Hobart
has or is likely to have connections in the future.
To this end, the City of Clarence provides for an Airport Buffer as described in Section 4.3.2.
Page 24
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
It should be noted that the first half of 2009 has already been a very challenging period for
the aviation industry in Australia. The global economic crisis has had significant and
widespread impact on all areas of the economy and accordingly there is uncertainty in
forecasting future trends, particularly in the short-term. However, the Master Plan must take
the long view (20 years and beyond) and in doing so an average growth trend has been
projected which endeavours to even out both positive and negative factors. As per Figure 7,
the aviation industry has encountered setbacks before and has shown continued strong
growth over the long term. In addition, the Master Plan must be updated at least every 5
years and accordingly, there is scope to revise projections depending on short-term
changes in demand trends between this Master Plan and each revision.
6.4
Passenger Traffic
6.4.1
Approach
A key element used for forecasting passenger traffic for Hobart for the 2009 Master Plan
has been to take forecasts from other airport Master Plans in the public domain, for airports
with which Hobart has existing connections, and to weight these according to the proportion
of passenger traffic to and from Hobart currently.
Airport
Growth per Annum
Adelaide
3.8%
Brisbane
5.2%
Sydney
3.9%
Canberra
4.8%
Melbourne
3.5% to 4.4%
Table 3
Forecast Growth at other Australian Airports
In addition, the above air traffic forecast data has been assessed in the context of historic
and future projections for other social and econometric factors for Tasmania including:

Population growth;

Employment;

Gross State Product (GSP); and

Tourism Australia projections.
These additional indicators imply growth over the life of the forecast, albeit at more
conservative levels – GSP indicates just under 3% CAGR. However, over the last ten
years, aviation forecasts have grown faster than these indicators and it is conceivable that
this trend will continue over the forecast planning period.
Melbourne Airport currently accounts for around two thirds of Hobart’s domestic traffic and
represents the key forecast in terms of weighting the average. Melbourne’s domestic
passenger growth forecast over the next 20 years (2008 to 2028) ranges from 3.5% to 4.4%
compound annual growth rate (CAGR).
The lower and higher bounds of the Melbourne forecast are respectively impacted by the
other airport forecasts to create the following weighted average for forecasting for Hobart:

Low Growth Scenario – 3.7% CAGR per annum;

Medium Growth Scenario – 4.1% CAGR per annum; and

High Growth Scenario – 4.4% CAGR per annum respectively.
The Medium Growth Scenario of 4.1% CAGR per annum has been chosen to take forward
for forecasting at Hobart as it represents the most pragmatic forecast for long-term planning.
Page 25
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
6.4.2
Forecast for Physical Planning
Figure 9 below summarises the annual forecasts for the 20 year period 2009 to 2029.
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
Passengers
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
Year
Historic Passenger Volumes
Figure 9
Low Growth Scenario 3.7%
Medium Growth Scenario 4.1%
High Growth Scenario 4.4%
Passenger Traffic Projections to 2029
Taking the Medium Growth Scenario of 4.1% per annum for forecasting at Hobart,
passenger throughput is estimated to reach 4.25 million annual passengers by 2029.
Assuming an 80% load factor on a primarily Code C operation, the average load per aircraft
in 2029 is estimated to be 137 passengers per aircraft. As such, 4.25 million annual
passengers equates to 31,000 movements.
A comparison of current and projected passenger traffic can be summarised as follows:

2008: 1.82 million annual passengers on 14,000 movements.

2029: 4.25 million annual passengers on 31,000 movements.

Passenger demand increases by factor of 2.3.

Aircraft movements increase by a factor of 2.2 owing to an increase in average load
per aircraft over time, driven by wide-body aircraft on international routes.
6.4.3
Annual to Busy Day and Busy Hour Demand
Whilst annual forecasts give an indication of future trends and can be used to guide
planning, facility requirements in particular apron parking and terminal capacity, need to
allow for and accommodate daily and hourly peaks. Accordingly, a 2009 planning day
schedule was generated and then grown using growth ratios established from the annual
forecasts discussed above to generate a busy day schedule for 2029.
A series of assumptions were made in generating the busy day schedule including
consolidation of existing routes and increased frequencies on these routes, as well as
growth into new markets both domestically and internationally. It is impossible to predict the
exact routes and scheduled flight times that airlines will choose in the future and accordingly
Page 26
Final
1 July 2010
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
-
HIAPL
sensible assumptions have been made to reflect HIAPL’s aspirations, known trends in the
aviation industry and through benchmarking with comparator Australian airports.
In terms of domestic operations, routes flown in 2029 could include Melbourne, Sydney,
Brisbane, Canberra, Adelaide, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Sunshine Coast and potentially
Perth.
In terms of domestic aircraft, it is assumed that the mix remains the same as in 2009.
These aircraft include typical narrow-body Code C aircraft already flying on routes between
Hobart and the mainland, such as the Qantas 737-800, Jetstar A320, Tiger A320 and Virgin
Blue 737-700 and 737-8003.
In terms of international operations, routes flown in 2029 could include Christchurch and
Auckland in New Zealand, and Kuala Lumpur and Singapore in South East Asia.
In terms of international aircraft, it is assumed that the mix includes mostly Code C
operations between Hobart and New Zealand, with the occasional wide-body Code E at
busy times. This reflects current scheduling between Australia and New Zealand on Qantas
and Air New Zealand. The South East Asia services are assumed to be operated on Code E
(up to 65m wingspan) aircraft. Reflecting the aircraft flown by current operators in this region
and in Australasia, these have been assumed to be Boeing B747s, B777s and Airbus
A330s.
The current pattern of movements across the day is replicated in 2029. However, demand
in off-peak periods has consolidated with increased leisure services and international
services. In general, there has been a decline in triangulation on international sectors, with
airlines preferring to fly point-to-point services. This is reflected in flight times assumed for
international movements. However, for noise modelling, some back-of-clock services have
been assumed to reflect potential delays and noise impacts at night.
3
A320s and B737-800s as operated by Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin Blue and Tiger are Code C aircraft, designated as having a wingspan of 24m up to
but not including 36m. A Code D aircraft has a wingspan of 36m up to but not including 52m, and a Code E aircraft such as a B747, B777 or
A330 has a wingspan of 52m up to but not including 65m.
Final 1 July 2010
J:\206117-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-02-00_ARUP REPORTS\04- Page 27
02-22 DRAFT RESUBMISSION\SUPERSEDED\0029E 2009 FINALMP.DOC
HIAPL
Departures and arrivals profiles in terms of passengers and aircraft movements are shown
in Figure 10 below.
2009 and 2029 Busy Day Aircraft Movements
Rolling Hour Departures
10
Movements
8
6
2009 Dep Mvts
2029 Dep Mvts
4
2
00
:0
0
01
:0
0
02
:0
0
03
:0
0
04
:0
0
05
:0
0
06
:0
0
07
:0
0
08
:0
0
09
:0
0
10
:0
0
11
:0
0
12
:0
0
13
:0
0
14
:0
0
15
:0
0
16
:0
0
17
:0
0
18
:0
0
19
:0
0
20
:0
0
21
:0
0
22
:0
0
23
:0
0
0
Time
2009 and 2029 Busy Day Aircraft Movements
Rolling Hour Arrivals
10
Movements
8
6
2009 Arr Mvts
2029 Arr Mvts
4
2
00
:0
0
01
:0
0
02
:0
0
03
:0
0
04
:0
0
05
:0
0
06
:0
0
07
:0
0
08
:0
0
09
:0
0
10
:0
0
11
:0
0
12
:0
0
13
:0
0
14
:0
0
15
:0
0
16
:0
0
17
:0
0
18
:0
0
19
:0
0
20
:0
0
21
:0
0
22
:0
0
23
:0
0
0
Time
Page 28
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
2009 and 2029 Busy Day Passenger Movements
Rolling Hour Departures
1500
1250
Movements
1000
2009 Dep Pax
2029 Dep Pax
750
500
250
00
:0
0
01
:0
0
02
:0
0
03
:0
0
04
:0
0
05
:0
0
06
:0
0
07
:0
0
08
:0
0
09
:0
0
10
:0
0
11
:0
0
12
:0
0
13
:0
0
14
:0
0
15
:0
0
16
:0
0
17
:0
0
18
:0
0
19
:0
0
20
:0
0
21
:0
0
22
:0
0
23
:0
0
0
Time
2009 and 2029 Busy Day Passenger Movements
Rolling Hour Arrivals
1500
1250
Movements
1000
2009 Arr Pax
2029 Arr Pax
750
500
250
00
:0
0
01
:0
0
02
:0
0
03
:0
0
04
:0
0
05
:0
0
06
:0
0
07
:0
0
08
:0
0
09
:0
0
10
:0
0
11
:0
0
12
:0
0
13
:0
0
14
:0
0
15
:0
0
16
:0
0
17
:0
0
18
:0
0
19
:0
0
20
:0
0
21
:0
0
22
:0
0
23
:0
0
0
Time
Figure 10
Daily and Busy Hour Movements and Passengers in 2009 and 2029
Key demand statistics in the 2009 and 2029 schedules are summarised below.
When compared to 2009, growth in passengers and movements is proportional between
daily and annual traffic, with passenger demand increasing by a factor of 2.3 and
movements by a factor of 2.2.
A degree of peak spreading has been applied to the busy hour for movements, with growth
assumed to be a factor of 2 between 2009 and 2029. This approach is typical and reflects
trends at maturing airports with the busy hour becoming saturated in terms of provision of
capacity versus actual demand and physical and / or airspace constraints.

2009 Schedule
Daily demand of 5,500 passengers on 40 movements;
Page 29
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Departures busy hour of 550 passengers on 4 movements; and
Aircraft stand requirements for parking, equivalent to 4 Code C stands, driven by
overnight arrival-first wave departures.

2029 Schedule
Daily demand of 12,500 passengers on 88 movements;
Departures busy hour of 1,100 passengers on 8 movements; and
Aircraft stand requirements for parking, equivalent to 8 Code C stands, driven by
overnight arrival-first wave departures.
Provision of one Code E stand for international traffic.
6.5
Freight Traffic
In terms of freight, recent trends show a decrease in aircraft movements. International
exporters and importers will continue to make use of the higher frequency, multiple
destination services available from Melbourne. Domestically, increases in sea freight
capacity across Bass Strait have caused uncertainty for the air-freight industry, though
freight shipped in the bellyhold of passenger aircraft continues to grow in line with
passenger traffic.
For the purposes of planning and noise modelling for this Master Plan, freight movements
have been assumed to grow from 1.5 movements per day to 3 movements per day by the
end of the ANEF long term timeframe.
6.6
GA Traffic
In terms of GA, recent trends show a decrease in aircraft movements.
Physical planning has been undertaken assuming modest growth but recognising that
Cambridge Airport could cease to operating as an airport in the future. Decisions about the
future of Cambridge are decisions entirely for its owner to make, noting the owner no longer
needs to operate the land as an aerodrome since that condition of original sale expired in
June 2004. Accordingly, HIAPL has considered it prudent to plan for consolidation of the
GA apron to the south of the existing terminal to accommodate existing operators such as
Tasair but to allow for growth to the south in the future.
For the purposes of noise modelling, GA movements have increased to test the notion of
feasible capacity as described in Section 6.7 below.
6.7
‘Long Range’ Forecast for Noise Modelling
6.7.1
Demand
The 2004 Hobart Master Plan looked ahead 50 years to a feasible capacity of 4 million
annual passengers for noise modelling, using Adelaide as a realistic and achievable
aspirational benchmark in terms of both the airport and its operation, as well as the city and
the region.
Taking the Medium Growth Scenario of 4.1% CAGR, a 50 year projection from 2009 would
take Hobart to 14 million annual passengers which compares to Brisbane Domestic
Terminal currently. Given the substantial differences between Hobart and Brisbane in terms
of economy, geography, catchment etc, this projection, whilst statistically valid, is unrealistic
and unlikely to be achievable. In addition, the ASA requirements for ANEFs require that
forecasts proposed for noise modelling are not greater than the potential of the runway
system to deliver this level of demand. Whilst a single runway could deliver 14 million
annual passengers, this would be at the higher end of potential throughput and, as such, it
is prudent to step back from this 50 year projection and take a more pragmatic approach to
selecting a horizon for noise modelling.
Page 30
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
As per the 2004 Master Plan, HIAPL believes that a comparison with current operations at
Adelaide provides a more attainable and feasible aspiration for Hobart. Throughput at
Adelaide was 6.7million passengers in 2007/8. However, with 546,000 of these passengers
being intrastate and related to the mining sector (i.e. not appropriate to Tasmania), 6.2
million annual passengers4 represents a more appropriate planning horizon for noise
modelling at Hobart, equivalent to 2038 or 29 years in the future. A forecast to 2038 would
represent a Long Range ANEF (i.e. a forecast of noise exposure levels beyond 20 years).
Figure 11 below summarises the work undertaken on the annual forecasts for the period
2009 to 2038.
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
Passengers
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
Year
Historic Passenger Volumes
MP Medium Growth Scenario 4.1%
Figure 11
MP Low Growth Scenario 3.7%
MP High Growth Scenario 4.4%
Passenger Traffic Projections to 2038
Assuming an 80% load factor on 96:4 Code C / Code E operation, the average load per
aircraft in 2038 is estimated to be 143 passengers per aircraft5. As such, 6.2 million annual
passengers equates to 43,000 jet movements.
ANEF ‘Long Range’ Forecast
6.7.2
The ‘Long range’ timeframe for ANEF purposes has been estimated by taking separations
between aircraft movements on the runway and the operational hours of the Airport and
replicating this operation over one year:

Assuming 3 minute separations between aircraft, this equates to 20 movements per
hour6.

20 movements per hour over 18 hours of operation (06:00-24:00) equates to
approximately 130,000 movements per year.

With itinerant and out of hours operations, the total feasible capacity for Hobart is in
the range of 137,000 movements per annum.
4
6.2 million passengers is approximately 3 times the existing passenger throughput at HBA.
In 2009, the primary aircraft operating out of Hobart are A320s and 737-800s. These aircraft have the following seat capacities - Qantas 737-800
- 168 seats; Virgin 737-800 - 180 seats; Tiger A320 - 180 seats; and Jetstar A320 -177 seats. By 2038, these aircraft are assumed to make up 96%
of operations. Assuming 80% load factors, the weighted average passenger load on these Code Cs equates to 140 passengers. By 2038, it is also
assumed that international services will have commenced between Hobart and New Zealand and South East Asia. International will make up 8%
of traffic, 4% Code C (which is included in the 96% Code C share discussed above) and 4% Code E traffic, comprising A330-300s with 312 seats
and 747-400 with 379 seats. Assuming 80% load factors on Code E aircraft also, the weighted average passenger load across Code Cs and Code
Es increases to 143 passengers.
6
HIAPL as confirmed with ATC and ASA that 3 minute separations are sensible and adequate for the purposes of noise modelling.
5
Page 31
Final
1 July 2010
2040
2039
2038
2037
2036
2035
2034
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
-
HIAPL
Both the noise modelling approach in 2004 out to a 2050 horizon and the approach
undertaken for the 2009 Master Plan out to a 2038 ‘Long Range’ horizon assume this
threshold of 137,000 movements per annum.
Within this total number of movements, the proportion of jet traffic increases over time - as
one would anticipate with the forecast demand growth to 6 million annual passengers.
Accordingly, in 2038, total movements for noise modelling are forecast to be:

6.2 million annual passengers on 143 seats equivalent to 43,000 passenger jet
movements, and

94,000 other movements comprising intrastate, GA, business, military, freight and
helicopters.
This approach allows for consistency between the 2004 and 2009 Master Plan studies with
consistency between total movements. In addition, this approach safeguards an adequate
buffer area around the airport for noise.
The noise modelling shown in Section 8 shows the ANEF 20 contour to be either over the
sea, or when over land, within the City of Clarence Airport Buffer.
Page 32
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
7
Aviation Capacity
This section describes how airside infrastructure and the terminal could be expanded to
meet forecast growth in passenger demand and aircraft movements over the next 20 years
out to 2029.
7.1
Aerodrome Reference Code
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Manual of Standards 139 (MOS139) provides
standards and requirements as well as general guidance on the planning, design, operation
and maintenance of airports in Australia.
MOS139 specifies the Aerodrome Reference Code for individual airports in terms of
performance capability and size of aircraft which use that airport. Generally speaking, the
higher Code numbers and letters designate larger aircraft and accordingly larger aerodrome
infrastructure to accommodate them.
The Aerodrome Reference Code comprises two components where:

The first component is a number (1 to 4) that denotes the aeroplane reference field
length, equivalent to the runway length required on take-off; and

The second component is a letter (A to F) related to the aeroplane’s physical
dimensions in terms of wingspan and outer main wheel span.
Table 4 below describes the Aerodrome Reference Code in terms of these components.
Code element I
Code number
1
*
Code element 2
Aeroplane reference
field length
Less than 800 m
Code letter
A
Wing span
Up to but not
including 15 m
Outer main gear
*
wheel span
up to but not
including 4.5 m
2
800 m up to but not
including 1200 m
B
15 m up to but not
including 24 m
4.5 m up to but not
including 6 m
3
1200 m up to but not
including 1800 m
C
24 m up to but not
including 36 m
6 m up to but not
including 9 m
4
1800 m and over
D
36 m up to but not
including 52 m
9 m up to but not
including 14 m
E
52 m up to but not
including 65 m
9 m up to but not
including 14 m
F
65 m up to but not
including 80 m
14 m up to but not
including 16 m
Distance between the outside edges of the main gear wheels
Table 4 Aerodrome Reference Code
An aircraft or airport facility is referred to by one or both elements of its Aerodrome
Reference Code. For example:

The primary runway Rwy 09/27 at Burnie Wynyard Airport TAS is 1650 metres by
30 metres and accordingly fulfils the requirements for Code 3C.

The primary runway Rwy 16/34 at Melbourne Airport VIC is 3657 metres by 60
metres and accordingly fulfils the requirements for Code 4F. The 60 metre runway
width is required to accommodate the A380.
Hobart Airport’s runway has a paved length of approximately 2,251 metres by 45m and
accordingly fulfils the requirements for Code 4E.
Page 33
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
7.2
Design Aircraft
The forecast design aircraft for Hobart Airport out to 2029 is the Boeing B747-400. This
aircraft was the design aircraft for the 2004 Master Plan and reflects the fact that the Airport
was upgraded to accommodate Code E type aircraft in 1985.
This aircraft, or a future equivalent such as the Boeing B787 is considered likely to be the
largest aircraft likely to fly future international RPT operations to or from Hobart.
Planning does not include for A380 or Code F operations as this is an unfeasible aspiration
in terms of cost, infrastructure requirements and future markets.
7.3
Existing Runway and Taxiway System
The existing airfield is shown in Figure 12.
Runway 12/30 which is aligned north-west to south-east, is 2,251 metres long and 45
metres wide, and is classified a Code 4 runway. The runway conforms to CASA standards.
Runway 12/30 is a high strength flexible runway is constructed with an asphaltic concrete
surface, and has a Pavement Classification Number (PCN) of 63. It is adequate for
unrestricted operations up to and including B767/A300 aircraft. B747 aircraft can operate
with a weight restriction.
The pavement rating for the runway/taxiway system at Hobart is PCN 63/F/D/1750/T
(Grooved).
The runway requires overlay at some stage in the forecast planning period but profiling and
use of surface area enrichment spray treatment are viable and should be considered for the
initial planning period to extend the life of the runway before overlay is required.
Figure 12
Existing Airfield Layout at Hobart
Page 34
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
The runway is serviced by two Taxiways C and D for entering and exiting the runway, linking
to partial parallel Taxiway A. From Taxiway A, Taxiways F and G service the international
and domestic aprons. Taxiway H also links Taxiway D and the apron.
Taxiways H and J give access to the freight apron, and Taxiway K leads from Taxiway J to
the GA area for aircraft under 5,700kgs Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW).
All taxiways (except K) are 23m wide and constructed of asphaltic concrete. Turn fillet
geometry on Taxiways A, F and D, east of A, make these taxiways available for wide-body
aircraft.
HIAPL maintains and develops the Airport's runway and taxiways.
7.4
Future Runway System
7.4.1
Runway 12/30
As part of the Master Plan exercise, calculations have been undertaken for aircraft take-off
length as this is generally considered to be longer than landing requirements and is
therefore more critical requirement for standard operations.
Take-off field lengths have been calculated using the aircraft performance data contained
within manufacturers’ aircraft manuals. The runway length calculated from these manuals is
for take-off at maximum certificated take-off mass, sea level, standard atmospheric
conditions, still air and zero runway slope.
The runway lengths calculated from the manuals have thus been adjusted to consider local
conditions at Hobart including temperature, elevation and runway slope.
The following has been assumed for all runway length scenarios:

Aerodrome Elevation
4 metres

Reference Temperature
~ 15ºC and 22ºC for day and night time operations

Runway Slope
0.04% elevation
The calculations show that the current runway length of 2,251 metres is adequate for takeoff on direct flights to:

The furthest domestic sectors such as Darwin, Cairns and Perth; and

International sectors such as New Zealand or Singapore and Kuala Lumpur in
South East Asia.
The aircraft types analysed include those currently operated by Qantas, Jetstar, Virgin Blue
and Tiger Airways on their services to or from Hobart. This group comprises Code C aircraft
such as Boeing 737-800, and Airbus 320.
Additional aircraft analysed included the 767-300 and Airbus A330 variants which could
potentially be operated by Qantas, Air New Zealand and Air Asia X on international routes.
The findings of the analysis for dry take-off for both day and night time operations are
summarised in Figure 13 below.
Page 35
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
3500
3000
Runway Length (m)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
- Night
- Night
Air New Zealand / 767-300ER - Day
- Night
Virgin Blue / 737-700 Winglets - Day
- Night
Air New Zealand / 737-300 - Day
- Night
Virgin Blue / 737-700 - Day
- Night
Jetstar / A320-232 - Day
- Night
Air New Zealand / A320-232 - Day
- Night
Qantas / 767-300ER - Day
- Night
- Night
- Night
Tiger / A320-232 - Day
- Night
- Night
Qantas / A330-303 - Day
- Night
Qantas / A330-202 - Day
- Night
- Night
Virgin Blue / 737-800 Winglets - Day
- Night
Qantas / 737-300 - Day
- Night
AirAsiaX / A330-301 - Day
- Night
Virgin Blue / 737-800 - Day
- Night
Qantas / 737-400 - Day
- Night
Qantas / 737-800 Winglets - Day
AirAsiaX / A330-343 - Day
0
Aircraft
Type Source Destination Distance (nm)
Qantas
DOM HBA
DRW
Jetstar
DOM HBA
DRW
2019
2019
Virgin Blue
DOM HBA
DRW
2019
2019
Tiger
DOM HBA
DRW
Air New Zealand
INT
HBA
AKL
1297
AirAsiaX
INT
HBA
KUL
3686
Figure 13
Runway Length Estimates by Aircraft Type (Day and Night)
The analysis shows that reasonable aspirations for future growth at Hobart can be met
without extending the runway.
For the heavier A330 variant and for large Code E aircraft such as the Boeing 747 and 777
(not analysed but a previous visitor to Hobart), a weight limit would need to be imposed for
aircraft landing and on takeoff for these aircraft to operate from the existing runway length of
2,251 metres. This has historically been the case for Qantas 747 aircraft and more recently
Singapore Airlines’ 2003 program of charter flights into Hobart Airport using B777-200
aircraft.
In conclusion, Runway 12/30 is considered adequate for current and future demand out to
2029.
Page 36
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 14
Qantas B747 at Hobart in the 1990s
Potential Runway Extension
7.4.2
A geometric exercise has been undertaken to understand the potential to extend Runway
12/30. This exercise indicates potential to extend the runway to 2,530m before there is an
obstacle infringement of the 2% approach surface.
With a commonly adopted standard of placing a 5.3m high vehicle obstacle on each road the Tasman Highway to the north and Surf Road to the south, back-plotting of the 2%
approach surface indicates the potential to extend the runway by 90 metres to the north and
190 metres to the south – an extension of approximately 280 metres.
Given that these runway extensions would allow for clearance of the obstacle by aircraft
operations, it is likely that these extensions would be acceptable to CASA. Any further
extension which might lead to vehicles penetrating the approach surface would need to be
referred to CASA.
A possible solution would be to install traffic lights on each road to prevent vehicles from
travelling for a distance equivalent to the width of the approach surface while an aircraft is
on final approach, though this might not be operationally feasible on the busy Tasman
Highway.
It should be noted that the 2009 Master Plan discusses this opportunity for runway
extension in the future, beyond the forecast planning period. This would allow larger heavier
aircraft to take-off and land at Hobart. At this stage, there is no intention to extend the
runway and as such no detailed assessment has been made with regard to:

Obstacle surveys and revised Obstacle Limitation Surfaces.

Potential impact on navaids including the VOR, ILS localiser and glidepath (ASA
would need to be consulted if any relocation of these navaids were required).

Operation of Tasman Highway and Surf Road.

Environmental Impact Study, including revised ANEF noise modelling.
7.4.3
Potential Alternative Runway
Provision has been made, through the purchase of land from the State Government, for
development of further operational facilities in the south-eastern and south-western parts of
the Airport.
Page 37
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
A geometric exercise has been undertaken to test dimensions and separations to
understand if a second runway could be provided, should such an enhancement of the
Airport’s capacity need to be considered in the future.
The exercise has shown that a short cross-runway towards the southern end of the main
runway for landing of GA aircraft is feasible within the existing airport site. A parallel runway
to the east of the airport would require land acquisition as there is not sufficient space at the
southern end of the eastern boundary of the Airport for either independent or dependent
parallel runways.
No need for these additional runways has yet arisen. As such, construction of this
infrastructure is not anticipated during the 20 year Master Plan period. Current runway
infrastructure has capacity to handle increases in general aviation activity.
7.5
Taxiway System
7.5.1
Parallel Taxiway
At present, arriving aircraft land on Runway 12/30 and continue until they have slowed
sufficiently for the pilot to turn the aircraft around on the runway and proceed to the
appropriate parking stand via Taxiways C or D. This has both capacity and safety
implications for the Airport as Runway 12/30 cannot be used for other operations whilst an
aircraft is on the runway.
By providing a parallel taxiway, the full length of Runway 12/30, the operation of the airport
can be enhanced such that arriving aircraft land on Runway 12/30 and proceed until the end
of the runway before exiting via the parallel taxiway. This is a faster process than currently
exists and would allow for greater utilisation of the existing runway.
Additional capacity could be achieved by providing Rapid Exit Taxiways (RETs) at suitable
distances along the runway to allow aircraft to exit the runway sooner and at higher speeds.
This would further increase capacity by reducing time spent on the runway and allowing
more frequent use of it.
Aerial Photograph © Google Imagery Terrametrics
Figure 15
Gold Coast Airport at Coolanagatta
With 4.3 million annual passengers using the airport in 2007/8, Gold Coast (Coolangatta)
Airport is a good comparator airport and suitable future benchmark for Hobart. As per Figure
15 above, Gold Coast has parallel taxiway running the entire length of Runway 14/32 which
Page 38
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
is 2,342metres in length. In 2007/8, throughput at Gold Coast-Coolangatta was 4.1 million
annual passengers so this benchmarks with Hobart’s potential at 2029.
The new parallel taxiway can be provided at 182.5m separation from taxiway centreline to
the centreline of Runway 12/30. Currently, the centreline Taxiway Alpha is aligned 215m
from the centreline of Runway 12/30 which is greater separation than required by CASA. As
such, the new parallel taxiway can be on slightly different alignment than Taxiway Alpha as
per Figure 1.
The width of the taxiway would need to be 23 metres as per other taxiways on the airport.
7.5.2
Additional Taxiways
Revisions to the taxiways from Taxiway Alpha will be needed to be made to accommodate
the changes proposed to the passengers and freight aprons. These new taxiways have as
yet not been named but can be seen on Figure 1 linking Taxiway Alpha to the passenger
apron and freight area.
7.6
Existing Apron Areas
7.6.1
Passenger Aircraft Apron
HIAPL maintains a contiguous international and domestic terminal apron, together with a
GA apron. The high strength flexible apron has five parking positions for narrow-body Code
C (B737/A320 size) aircraft, overlayed by two positions for small wide-body Code D (B767
size) aircraft.
The international apron has one bay effectively overlaying the two narrow-body bays at the
northern end of the apron. This bay is able to accommodate large wide-body aircraft up to
Code E and including B747-400 and B777-200.
There are no aerobridges at the Airport.
Freight Apron
7.6.2
The freight apron has three parking bays, two of which can accommodate aircraft up to
B727-200, and the third up to C130. Only two positions can be simultaneously used to
accommodate large aircraft.
7.6.3
GA Apron
Various GA aircraft parking areas have space for up 20 aircraft in the Code A and B
categories. In-ground tie down points are provided on two of these areas.
General
7.6.4
All bays on the domestic, international and freight aprons are currently power-in and powerout positions.
Refuelling at Hobart airport is provided through vehicles supplied from the BP Air depot.
7.7
Apron Planning - Passenger Aircraft
As described in Section 6.4.3, the forecasts for Regular Public Transport (RPT) traffic
indicate a requirement for:

8 domestic Code C aircraft to accommodate the overnight arrivals-first wave
departures to domestic destinations such as Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane.

1 international Code E aircraft for flights - likely destinations in New Zealand or
South-East Asia.
In addition, there is 1 international Code C stand for Antarctic flights.
The physical planning of the apron for these domestic and international services was initially
developed assuming power-in, power-out operations.
Page 39
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
A power-in, power-out operation is when an aircraft arrives at its parking stand and
manoeuvres into it under its own power. For departure, the aircraft manoeuvres out from
the stand, again under its own engine power, before accessing the runway for take-off.
Power-in, power-out describes the operation currently in place at Hobart as per Figure 16
below. Power-in power-out requires significant area for aircraft manoeuvring.
Under a power-in, power-out scenario, passengers would continue to walk across the apron
to or from aircraft as aerobridges whilst not incompatible with this kind of operation, are not
typically used.
Figure 16
Power-In Power-Out Operation at Hobart
An evaluation of future apron layouts was presented to stakeholders at the aeronautical
planning workshop on 18th March 2009. At the workshop, a continuation of power-in powerout operations was presented and discounted on the basis of:

Land Take - owing to the greater area required to manoeuvre aircraft under powerin / power-out operation, the parking stand requirement discussed above meant the
apron stretching either beyond the existing Fire Station to the south or along the
Loop Road to the north. The former would impact operations to the south of the
terminal and the latter compromises the planned northern freight terminal area.

Terminal consolidation - to provide sufficient terminal frontage for 8 Code C and 1
Code E power-in, power-out stands, this would necessitate elongating the terminal
or providing multiple piers which would shift the centre of gravity away from the
existing terminal. Such an approach would require significant new build as well
duplication of facilities for airlines and ground handlers. This would be an
expensive and inefficient design solution. In addition, the retail offer to passengers
in the terminal would be spread out and fractured and, as such, these options were
considered inadequate.

Passenger Experience – walk distances associated with a stretched terminal
would be long, with circuitous access to the kerb and car parks. With a fragmented
offer in terms of key functions such as check-in, security and bag claim, passenger
flow and wayfinding would have been compromised.
Given these reasons, the optioneering exercise moved away from power-in power-out and
investigated power-in, push-back operations and the impact this had on area requirement
and operation of the apron.
A power-in, push-back operation is when an aircraft arrives at its parking stand and
manoeuvres head-on under its own power. For departure, the aircraft is pushed back by a
Page 40
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
tug onto a taxiway – from there the aircraft then applies engine power and manoeuvres out
to the runway threshold.
Figure 17 below shows an aircraft pushing back at Melbourne Airport.
Figure 17
Pushback Operation at Melbourne
The shift to a power-in, push-back operation reduces the requirement for apron area as the
manoeuvring of the aircraft requires less space – aircraft can enter the stand head-on and
be pushed straight back rather than having to manoeuvre around a specific turning circle.
The preferred layout assuming power-in push-back is shown in Figure 18. Aerobridges
could be provided for power-in, push-back stands, with the flexibility of power-in, power-out
for certain stands for airlines which might wish to continue operating in this manner.
Figure 18
Preferred 2029 Stand Layout at Hobart
Page 41
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
In terms of engineering and design, aerobridges typically connect to the first floor of a
terminal building posing a potential level change issue for the Airport if introduced in the
future. Hobart is currently only one level. However, benchmarking with other airports
internationally has shown that aerobridges to ground level, whilst less common, are also in
operation.
Figure 19
7.8
Aerobridge to ground level operations in the USA
Apron Planning – Freight Aircraft
7.8.1
Planning Approach
HIAPL is committed to facilitating the provision of infrastructure to meet demand and
operational requirements related to freight.
Hobart Airport is an important international and domestic air freight centre, with the major
commodities handled including seafood, fruit and vegetables, flowers, ‘just in time’
manufactured goods, newspapers and livestock.
Existing Freight Operation
7.8.2
The Airport has two domestic freight areas, catering for Australian air Express and Virgin
Blue / Toll Air Express. The Australian air Express and the Toll Air Express facilities are
located respectively to the south and north of the terminal.
The Australian air Express freight facility includes two buildings on a total area of
approximately 10,000m2, including the freight apron itself. Australian air Express uses
dedicated jet freight aircraft. The building facilities incorporate asbestos cladding, and freight
operations suffer from the fact that the facilities were originally aircraft hangars. Freight
carried on passenger aircraft is loaded and unloaded on the domestic apron, and
transported on trolleys to and from the freight area.
Page 42
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 20
Australian air Express Operation at Hobart
In January 2007, Virgin Blue / Toll Air opened a 1,000m2 dedicated freight facility at Hobart
Airport, including a cool room for safe handling and preservation of perishable goods such
as food and flowers.
Future Freight Development
7.8.3
As foreshadowed in the 1999 and 2004 Master Plans, HIAPL intends to establish modern
freight facilities to the north of the terminal building in accordance with previous and current
zoning, with the southern precinct intended predominantly for general aviation and business
aviation opportunities.
This reflected in the 2029 airport layout in Figure 1 and Appendix A.
The future freight facilities planned for the northern Precinct allow for the development of
warehouses and cool stores, and the expansion of both domestic and international airfreight
facilities in the future (including Antarctic freight). In the medium term this could provide
increased capacity for growth of the aquaculture industry in the areas surrounding the
Airport, and storage for the berry fruit and viticulture industry in the Coal River Valley and
adjoining district.
However, as development becomes necessary to meet long-term freight activity, the
northern and southern precinct options in this Master Plan will be continually reviewed. It
may be that the progress of terminal development to the north and south beyond 2029
warrants reconsideration of some continued freight activity in a southern precinct in the
future.
7.9
Apron Planning – General Aviation
7.9.1
Existing GA Operation
General aviation activity at Hobart International Airport. Principal users are Tasair Pty Ltd,
Rotor-Lift Pty Ltd (landside rotary operations), Sky Trek Pty Ltd, the Royal Flying Doctor
Service, small freight operators, small business jets, and charter operators.
Modern facilities accommodate Tasair, Rotor-Lift and Sky Trek. Sky Trek has recently
opened a new facility that provides itinerant general aviation uses with hangarage, aircraft
parking, rest and recreation, and flight planning facilities. Nearly all recreational general
aviation activity in the Hobart region is off airport, at either the adjacent Cambridge Airport,
or at privately owned strips.
Page 43
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Pursuant to the terms of its sale in 1999, Cambridge no longer needs to remain a general
aviation airport with the expiry of the condition to that effect in June 2004. However,
decisions about the future of Cambridge continue to be decisions entirely for its owner to
make.
Future GA Development
7.9.2
To consolidate GA activity in one area and in anticipation of the possibility of Cambridge
Airport ceasing operations, HIAPL has planned a revised GA apron layout which can be
expanded in a modular fashion to accommodate up to 12 Code B aircraft, with the current
freight apron being freed up for two aircraft up to Code C in size for business traffic. A
revised landside / airside boundary could be provided to facilitate GA operations.
This is reflected in the 2029 Airport Layout in Figure 1 and is shown in greater detail in
Figure 21 below.
Figure 21
7.10
Consolidated GA Apron
Terminal Planning
7.10.1 Planning Approach
Despite the increase in passenger numbers between 1999 and 2004, there had been no
material increase in public space in the domestic terminal, or upgrading of facilities. This
situation resulted in a decline passenger level of service, with queues at check-in and
security, and an inability to accommodate more than two airlines.
In response to this and as foreshadowed in the 2004 Master Plan, a major $23 million
redevelopment of the terminal has been undertaken with Stage 1 and 2 works largely
completed by the end of 2007. The most recent works undertaken involved the construction
of a central check-in hall, a baggage hall and a checked-in baggage x-ray screening system
built between the international and domestic terminals, completing integration of the two
terminals into one facility. All checked baggage is screened and x-rayed in the outbound
baggage hall prior to being loaded into the hold of aircraft in accordance with Federal
requirements.
Located to the north of the integrated terminal, the international facility is used by Antarctic
flights operated by Skytraders for the Australian Antarctic Division, and other Antarctic
Page 44
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
nations. This end of the terminal to the north is also used by Virgin Blue and Tiger and
indeed these airlines’ baggage carousel continues to be located at the northern end of the
terminal. As such, there can be overlap and consequent operational issues in handling both
domestic and international operations at this end of the terminal. Between the check-in hall
and the southern end of the terminal is the QClub and the Qantas and Jetstar domestic
baggage claim area.
The terminal contains office facilities for airlines, as well as other services and conveniences
for terminal users. The redevelopment of the terminal includes provision for baby change
and nursing mother facilities, public telecommunications, internet access, and an ATM.
7.10.2 Future Growth
As part of the 2009 Master Plan, HIAPL has modelled expansion requirements at five yearly
intervals out to 2029 and has developed an ultimate terminal footprint for the 2029 scenario.
A key driver behind this exercise was the desire to continue down the path of the successful
integration of the terminal, building new assets incrementally to allow sensibly staged
expansion of the terminal for both domestic and international traffic.
The conclusions of this planning exercise are described below, with block plans of the
terminal expansion shown in Figure 22 below. Facilities have been sized to IATA Level of
Service C.
Page 45
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 22
Terminal Planning Concepts
Key components of the 2029 terminal layout are as follows:

Check-in - increased provision likely up to 30 counters from the current 20
counters. Whilst demand in the busy hour is forecast to double, increased take-up
of kiosk and internet check-in, charging for checked baggage, improvements in
technology and a greater shift to Common User check-in will likely mean only a 50%
increase in processing and area requirements over and above the existing 20
counters. An additional baggage belt will be required into the outbound baggage
hall.

Security - security provision to increase from 2 lanes currently to 4 lanes (3 for
domestic and 1 for international, with space for a second lane for redundancy and /
or expansion). At this stage, security for international and domestic departures is
shown in two distinct areas – international security to the north and domestic in the
central areas broadly where the existing security is located.

Domestic Gate Lounge - gate lounge space for 8 Code Cs provided in accordance
with IATA Level of Service C, within the existing terminal footprint and in the
proposed central finger pier. From the gate lounge, passengers can either walk-out
to the aircraft or use aerobridges if these have been provided.

International Gate Lounge - gate lounge space for 2 Code Cs or 1 Code E has
been provided in accordance with IATA Level of Service C. From the gate lounge,
passengers can either walk-out to the aircraft or use aerobridges if these have been
provided.

Retail - A typical rule-of-thumb for airport retail provision is 750m2 per million annual
passengers. Accordingly, existing provision in the terminal should be around
1350m2 but is currently about half of this provision. As such, moving forward,
HIAPL proposes to increase concessions in the terminal to meet customer needs,
improve passenger experience and choice, and to increase its commercial revenue
base. The terminal concept proposed is flexible enough to accommodate increased
retail to positively enhance the passenger experience.
Page 46
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

Outbound baggage - The outbound baggage hall is over 1500m2 and could
accommodate 8 Code C aircraft in the 2018 departures busy hour, without the
requirement for expansion, assuming three baggage carts per aircraft. Typically
four carts would be used so expansion to the bag hall may be required after 2019.
The baggage hall will need to process both international and domestic bags from
2012 in the same hall. This not unprecedented and Adelaide Airport provides an
example of where this is working successfully elsewhere in Australia.
Both international and domestic bags require the same level of security screening
so can be injected into the same outbound bag system. As per the Adelaide model,
all international bags would then be pushed or manually moved to a dedicated area
in the baggage make up area. HIAPL would seek advice and input from Customs
throughout the planning process for international flights to ensure requirements for
inspection were met.
Given the above requirements and potential growth beyond 2019, the layouts show
a potential 500m2 increase in baggage hall capacity. A detailed planning
assessment would need to made regarding the trigger for this expansion at the
appropriate time during the forecast planning period.

Domestic Arrivals – passengers would arrive either via aerobridges into the central
retail area or walk-in at grade from the apron as per the current operation.

Domestic Bag Claim Consolidated domestic baggage reclaim located to south of
terminal building comprising two 60m carousels for all domestic carriers.

International Arrivals - passengers would arrive either via aerobridges into the
international facility or walk-in at grade from the apron as per the current operation.
Passengers would pass through Immigration, collect bags from a single 60 metre
carousel before being processed at customs/AQIS. A small duty free area is
provided airside and food and beverage area for meeter-greeters on the landside on
passenger exit from Customs / AQIS.
At the stakeholder workshops, it was noted that upgrading of international facilities
would require sensible phasing to achieve the relevant physical, regulatory and
operational requirements prior to handling significant volumes of international
passengers.
Given the lead time associated with preparing an international facility to
accommodate regular passenger operations, particularly in terms of security,
customs and border protection, and quarantine services, any refit of the
international terminal would need to occur at least 6 to 12 months prior to
7.11
Implementation
In terms of phasing and implementation of the works discussed above, please refer to
Section 14.
Page 47
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
8
Aircraft Noise
8.1
Introduction
Noise from aircraft operations is recognised as a critical issue for the operation of airports.
However, at Hobart Airport, noise from aircraft operations has historically not been a
significant issue. Planning controls in Clarence have largely avoided sensitive residential
receivers being developed near to the airport, and the location of the airport and orientation
of the runway means that landing and departure flight-paths are predominantly over bodies
of water rather than residential areas. Part of the Airport Buffer (AB) as defined in the 2007
City of Clarence Planning Scheme is shown in Figure 23 below.
Taken from 2007 City of Clarence Planning Scheme
Figure 23
City of Clarence Airport Buffer, Planning Scheme 2007
This section of the Master Plan provides an overview of the issues relating to aircraft noise
management at the Airport, provides a discussion of the noise modelling undertaken based
on the current Master Plan, and presents the projected Long Range 2038 Australian Noise
Exposure Forecast (ANEF) contours for the airport. As required under the Airports Act
Page 48
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
1996, the ANEF was endorsed for technical accuracy by Airservices Australia (ASA) in the
approved manner on 25th August 2009.
8.2
Responsibilities
As part of this Master Plan, HIAPL is responsible for addressing potential noise impacts
from the airport’s operation, particularly from flight operations.
However, HIAPL is not responsible for, and does not have ultimate control over aircraft
operation or airspace management, since these are the responsibility of the aircraft
operators and the Office of Airspace Regulation within CASA.
The Office of Airspace Regulation within CASA is also responsible for the development of
the airspace architecture (flight tracks), and ongoing air traffic management and ATC (i.e.
management of all aircraft arrivals and departures).
As part of this Master Plan, HIAPL is required to produce Australian Noise Exposure
Forecast (ANEF) contours for land use planning, and to have the forecast endorsed for
technical accuracy by Airservices Australia. The ANEF was endorsed for technical
accuracy by Airservices Australia (ASA) in the approved manner on 25th August 2009.
At time of writing, the numbers to call for aircraft noise concerns are Noise Enquiry Service
phone 1800 802 584 (freecall) or 1300 302 240 (local call).
8.3
The ANEF
Commonwealth Government policy requires the calculation of ANEF contours for use in
assessing future noise exposure patterns around Australian airports. These contours
represent the ‘average day’ noise exposure at locations near to the airport. Higher ANEF
values represent a greater level of aircraft noise exposure. However the numerical values
of the ANEF contours do not relate specifically to ‘average’ or even single event aircraft
sound pressure levels.
The ANEF values do provide a way of correlating the aircraft noise dose with the likely
subjective community reaction, and were developed through substantial socio-acoustic
surveys conducted around major Australian airports. Indeed, the ANEF modelling accounts
for noise at night which is considered to be more intrusive and accordingly a weighting is
applied for night movements, equivalent to four day-time movements.
The ANEF contours are adopted as a land use planning tool in conjunction with AS2021
Aircraft Noise Intrusion – building siting and construction. The ANEF noise contour level is
used to determine acceptability of areas for certain types of development in accordance with
the guidance in AS2021. In general, residential development is considered ‘acceptable’ in
areas outside of the ANEF 20 contour, while it is ‘conditionally acceptable’ between ANEF
20 – 25, and ‘unacceptable within the ANEF 25 contour. It is noted that if a location lies
outside of the ANEF 20 contour, it does not mean that location is not subject to any aircraft
noise exposure.
Table 5 below provides a summary of building site acceptability based on ANEF Zones,
using Table 2.1 of AS2021. It should be noted that the land uses proposed in Section 11
conform with the ANEF zones described below.
Page 49
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Building type
House, home unit,
flat, caravan park
Hotel, motel,
hostel
School, university
Hospital, nursing
home
Public building
Commercial
building
Light industrial
Other industrial
Table 5
ANEF zone of site
Conditionally
Acceptable
20 to 25 ANEF
(Note 2)
25 to 30 ANEF
Acceptable
Less than 20 ANEF
(Note 1)
Less than 25 ANEF
Less than 20 ANEF
(Note 1)
Less than 20 ANEF
(Note 1)
Less than 20 ANEF
(Note 1)
Less than 25 ANEF
Less than 30 ANEF
Unacceptable
Greater than 25 ANEF
20 to 25 ANEF
(Note 2)
20 to 25 ANEF
20 to 30 ANEF
25 to 30 ANEF
30 to 40 ANEF
Acceptable in all ANEF zones
ANEF Definitions
Note 1: The actual location of the 20 ANEF is difficult to define accurately, mainly because of variations in aircraft flight paths.
Because of this, the procedures in Clause 2.3.2 of the Standard may be followed for building sites outside but near the 20 ANEF
contour.
Note 2: Within the 20 to 25 ANEF, some people may find that the land is not compatible with residential or educational uses. Land
use authorities may consider that the incorporation of noise control features in the construction of residences or schools is
appropriate.
8.4
Noise Modelling Methodology
Aircraft Noise Modelling is required to be undertaken using the US Federal Aviation
Authority’s (FAA) Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.2a and 7.0. The modelling for
Hobart has been undertaken using INM 7.0.
INM is computer noise prediction software which uses Noise-Power-Distance data for
aircraft to allow the calculation of the noise exposure in the locality surrounding airports.
The INM software calculates the ANEF based on;

Aircraft type and source noise levels (including specific operation mode and thrust
setting);

Operating schedule which defines the frequency of aircraft types and the aircraft
fleet mix;

Acoustic directivity;

Aircraft flight tracks used; and

Source receiver geometry (including terrain modelling).
The operating mode of the airport, and therefore the flight-track used by particular aircraft
depends on the meteorological conditions (primarily wind speed and direction, visibility
(particularly cloud-base height) and whether it is wet or dry), and the number of aircraft
landing and departing at any one time.
8.5
Aircraft Operations and Noise
In relation to the level of noise generated by aircraft operations, it is noted that the noise
modelling for Hobart Airport is based on calculations of aircraft noise from aircraft travelling
on prescribed flight tracks, commonly called ‘flight paths’. Noise from aircraft operations is
usually concentrated in areas below these flight tracks.
The flight tracks used in the modelling are based on actual tracks required to be used by
aircraft arriving or departing the airport along designated flight tracks, known as STARS
(Standard Terminal Arrival Routes) for arrivals, and SIDs (Standard Instrument Departures)
for departures. The STARs and SIDs document directional and height limits that must be
Page 50
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
observed when landing or departing from the airport, and have been developed and are
distributed by ASA primarily to ensure safety of aircraft operations. Occasionally, under
favourable conditions, aircraft are allowed to make ‘visual’ landings without following a
standard track.
For some Australian Airports, ASA have installed precision Noise and Flight Path Monitoring
Systems (NFPMS) to more accurately record the flight track used by each aircraft arrival
and departure from the airport. These records can be helpful in determining the typical
spread of actual flight operations around the notional track centreline.
However, there is no NFPMS installed at Hobart International Airport so the precise spatial
location of aircraft arriving and departing the airport cannot be known. Therefore, for the
purposes of the noise predictions and ANEF calculation, aircraft have been assumed to be
at the centre of the prescribed flight tracks.
The recent introduction of Required Navigational Performance (RNP), an automated GPS
based guidance system on newer aircraft results in much tighter control of aircraft tracking,
means aircraft are more likely to follow the centre of prescribed tracks in the future. This
system also allows Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) which results in less low-level
aircraft manoeuvring and the later deployment of landing gear and high-lift wing
configurations, resulting in lower noise levels during the approach.
There are also several significant aerodynamic, engine and operational advancements
being achieved by manufacturers and airlines which are likely to lead to a further reduction
in future aircraft noise levels. These include ongoing fleet replacement programmes which
introduce newer, quieter aircraft, and improved airframe aerodynamics.
These benefits are not able to be modelled in INM, and in that respect, the ANEF contours
presented in the Master Plan are expected to be conservative; that is, they over-predict the
impacts of aircraft noise.
8.6
Flight Tracks
The identification of the flight tracks used in the modelling has taken into consideration the
operational characteristics of the aircraft using the Airport, the standard visual flying
procedures adopted for departure, arrival and training circuits, and the standard instrument
departure and arrival procedures for Hobart Airport as documented by ASA in the Hobart
Aeronautical Information Package (AIP).
Flight track location and usage has been developed and confirmed with Hobart Air Traffic
Control and ASA as part of the endorsement process. Note, the modelling does not include
aircraft or flight tracks related to nearby Cambridge Airport, nor do these tracks need to be
included in the modelling for Hobart Airport.
The following sections document the Arrival, Departure and Circuit tracks that have been
adopted in the INM Model.
The arrival flight tracks used in the modelling are shown in Figure 24. Helicopter tracks
flown from west of the terminal are marked with prefix “H”. All other tracks are flown by
fixed wing aircraft including domestic and future international services.
Page 51
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 24 Arrival Flight Tracks
Departure tracks are shown in Figure 25. As for arrivals, helicopter tracks flown from west
of the terminal are marked with prefix “H”. All other tracks are flown by fixed wing aircraft
including domestic and future international services.
Page 52
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 25 Departure Flight Tracks
Circuit (Training) tracks assigned to fixed wing aircraft are shown in Figure 26. These tracks
are flown by light and GA aircraft for training, flyover and touch-and-go operations.
Page 53
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 26 Circuit Tracks (Touch-And-Go and Flyover)
8.7
Noise Modelling Results
The ANEF contours for Hobart Airport are shown in Figure 27. As required under the
Airports Act 1996, the ANEF was endorsed for technical accuracy by Airservices Australia
(ASA) in the approved manner on 25th August 2009.
The ANEF 20 contour does not significantly impact existing residential areas near to the
airport as the orientation of the runway means that landing and departure flight paths are
predominantly over bodies of water rather than residential areas.
The 2038 Long Range ANEF presented in the Master Plan is based on predicted future
aircraft operating schedules, and does not represent current or near-term noise exposure
around the airport. However, it does provide appropriate guidance to ensure long-term
considerations in land use planning assessments.
Page 54
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Building type
House, home unit,
flat, caravan park
Hotel, motel,
hostel
School, university
Hospital, nursing
home
Public building
Commercial
building
Light industrial
Other industrial
Acceptable
Less than 20 ANEF
(Note 1)
Less than 25 ANEF
Less than 20 ANEF
(Note 1)
Less than 20 ANEF
(Note 1)
Less than 20 ANEF
(Note 1)
Less than 25 ANEF
Less than 30 ANEF
Figure 27
ANEF zone of site
Conditionally
Acceptable
20 to 25 ANEF
(Note 2)
25 to 30 ANEF
20 to 25 ANEF
(Note 2)
20 to 25 ANEF
Unacceptable
20 to 30 ANEF
25 to 30 ANEF
30 to 40 ANEF
Acceptable in all ANEF zones
2038 Long Range ANEF Contours
Page 55
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
8.8
Comparison of the 2004 and 2009 Master Plan ANEF Contours
In broad terms, the ANEF contours in this Master Plan are similar to the contours presented
and endorsed in the 2004 Master Plan, reflecting that both Master Plans looked beyond the
20 year horizon, with the 2004 Master Plan projecting noise 50 years into the future and the
current Master Plan projecting out to a Long Range horizon of 2038.
The contours from the 2004 Master Plan are shown in Figure 28.
Figure 28
Ultimate Feasible Capacity ANEF Contours from the 2004 Master Plan
The key difference between the 2004 and 2009 ANEF contours relates to the spikes,
primarily to the north-east of Runway 12/30 across Pitt Water, but also to the south-west
over Frederick Henry Bay and to a lesser extent the two “horns” over Cambridge Airport and
Seven Mile Beach.
These spikes are reduced in the latest modelling owing to revised modelling of the flight
tracks for helicopters, referenced with the prefix “H” in Figure 24 and Figure 25. Previously
these were modelled as four distinct arrival and departure tracks, when in reality helicopters
operating on Visual Flight Rules do not follow such precise tracks but can fly in multiple
directions above 500 feet.
With a more appropriate modelling of helicopters in the latest ANEF, these bulges or spikes
are reduced.
Page 56
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
8.9
Consultation with Stakeholders on Noise
For ASA to endorse the ANEF contours, there is now a requirement under the Airports Act
1996 to provide “evidence that the relevant State and Local Government authorities have
sighted the proposed ANEF contour chart and have had the opportunity to comment.”
To this end, HIAPL presented the findings of the ANEF modelling at a stakeholder workshop
held at Hobart Airport on 19th March which was attended by representatives from:

Operators Tasair and RotorLift;

Air Services Australia;

Clarence City Council;

Sorell Council;

Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority (STCA);

State Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts (DEPHA);

State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER); and

Federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local
Government.
Stakeholders were invited to provide verbal comment at the workshop and written comment
within two weeks of the workshop itself.
In addition, as part of the ANEF endorsement process, HIAPL sent updates and revised
ANEF noise contours to all stakeholders prior to finalisation of the modelling. Responses
have been received from both State (STCA, DEPHA and DIER) and Local Government
authorities (Clarence and Sorrell).
Clarence City Council noted that the proposed 20 ANEF contour is contained within the
boundaries of the Clarence Planning Scheme 2007’s Airport Buffer Overlay.
Page 57
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
9
Other Aviation Uses
9.1
Air Services Australia
9.1.1
Air Traffic Control
Existing Situation
The Airport’s control tower is operated by Airservices Australia (ASA) on land leased from
HIAPL for a nominal rent. The tower is 12.5m high and was constructed in 1953. The
controllers within the tower are responsible for directing all aircraft landings, take-offs, and
all movements on the runway and taxiways at the Airport as well as activity at Cambridge.
ASA ensures that air traffic in the Hobart region is managed in such a manner that
maximum capacity and optimum utilisation can be achieved from the Airport facilities during
the tower's opening hours, and within the requirements of legislation including the Air
Services Act 1995.
Future Development
It is anticipated that during the forecast planning period the control tower may need to be
replaced with modern facilities.
ASA recently commissioned a site study under the National Towers Program which
concluded that the current tower was situated in the best location. The study concluded that
if a new tower were to be provided, it would be best situated adjacent to the existing tower in
the same or as close as possible adjacent location on top of the hill. Alternatively the
current tower could be replaced or refurbished to allow for new technology and / or
additional ATC manager, training and extended equipment room accommodation within a
secure compound.
HIAPL recognises that any future development, including of the freight area and any
terminal expansion, will need to be developed considering lines of sight from the tower.
9.1.2
Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (ARFFS)
Existing Situation
It is the responsibility of ASA’s Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (ARFFS) to
perform fire fighting functions at Hobart Airport and to notify the other response agencies.
The role of the Tasmanian Fire Service is to be combatant authority for fires away from the
Airport’s aircraft movement area and its associated buildings, with the assistance of the
ARFFS, and to assist the ARFFS in operations involving airport emergencies.
Opened in 1956, the fire station is located to the south of the terminal building and is one of
the oldest airport fire stations in Australia.
Future Development
It is not envisaged that aviation-related development will impact the existing fire station.
However, it is understood from correspondence between HIAPL and ASA that ASA is
currently looking to relocate the fire station. Whilst this would require further consultation,
possible locations could be to the east of Runway 12/30 or to the west of Runway 12/30 but
further south away from existing buildings and aprons.
Critical to the siting of the station will be ARFFS response times which usually determine an
optimised location with respect to the runway or runways. ASA has set operational
objectives of:

a two minute response time to the end of each runway; and

a response time not exceeding three minutes to any part of the movement area.
The category of ARFFS required at an airport is dependent on the largest design aircraft
using that airport and the frequency that aircraft uses the airport. As current operations are
Code C, primarily B737-800s and A320s, the ARFFS provision is Category 7 cover.
Page 58
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
The largest critical design aircraft at Hobart in 2029 will be Code E aircraft such as the
B747-400, B777 and A330. These aircraft require Category 9 cover but as movements are
forecast to be below 700 in the busiest three months of the year, lessees are permitted to
reduce the scale of ARFFS facilities to one category below.
Accordingly, the switch from the current Category 7 will be to Category 8, with the onset of
regular Code E passenger services in the future.
9.2
Airport Operational Services
9.2.1
Navigational and Landing Aids
Existing Situation
The following ground based navigational and landing aids are provided at the Airport:

VOR - VHF omni-directional range, providing radial tracks to the beacon through
360° of the magnetic compass;

DME - distance measuring equipment, which provides the air distance between the
aircraft and ground installation;

ILS - an instrument landing system, which provides track (via the localiser) and
approach slope guidance (via the glide path) for landings on Runway 12;

T-VASIS visual approach slope indicator systems, providing visual slope guidance
for approaches to runways 12 and 30; and

High-intensity approach lighting to precision category 1 for Runway 12.
Future Development
Any specific request for introduction or relocation of navigation aids needs to be done in
consultation with Airservices.
Airservices has recently revised the protection areas for ILS to prevent interference to the
instrument landing system (ILS) including localizer, glide path and markers from buildings or
structures . The revised areas have been developed in harmony with the current draft
revision of ICAO Annex 10, Volume 1, Attachment C and “ICAO EUR DOC 015 - European
Guidance Material on managing Building Restricted Areas”.
The intention of the ILS Building Restricted Area is not to prohibit development but rather it
is a trigger for an assessment by ASA. HIAPL will work with ASA prior to construction of
new facilities which might impact the ILS, recognising that the shape, the dimensions and
the materials used in a structure as well as its location are of importance to this.
9.2.2
Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS)
Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) is an emerging technology for the guidance of
aircraft during the landing phase of flight.
A GBAS facility typically consists of four satellite receiving antennas (Reference Receivers),
a VHF data link antenna (VDB) and an equipment shelter. The RR antennas are tonically
sited not less than 100m from one another in a square pattern. The VTR antenna and
shelter may either be installed within this area or immediately adjacent to this area however
this is dependent upon the specific conditions of the site in question.
GBAS offers advantages in terms of improved airport capacity and flexibility of location.
HIAPL acknowledges the development of this emerging technology, the potential for its
implementation at Hobart Airport and the requirement for further and ongoing consultations
with ASA.
Page 59
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
9.3
Airport Lighting
9.3.1
Existing Situation
Aeronautical ground lighting (AGL) comprises:

Runway and taxiway lighting;

Apron flood lighting;

Special VFR (visual flight rules) departure lighting; and

Obstacle Lighting.
Specifically, the airport runway lighting system consists of:

High Intensity and Low Intensity Runway Edge Lighting;

Runway 12 and Runway 30 T-VASIS Systems; and

Runway 12 High Intensity Approach Lighting System.
HIAPL maintains an onsite emergency power supply in the event that Airport lighting is lost
due to a power failure.
9.3.2
Future Development
In terms of AGL at Hobart, the lighting systems associated with the runway and taxiways are
grandfathered so realigning the taxiways as per developments proposed in the initial
planning period could necessitate replacement of all taxiway lighting along specific sections.
The next lighting scheduled for upgrade is the approach lighting located on masts in the
water, owing to corrosion from salt in the sea water.
Taxiway lighting and apron lighting will be augmented for the various taxiway extension and
apron expansion provisions in the Master Plan.
9.4
Airside Signage
Airside Aerodrome Signage which assists to reduce safety risk on busy movement areas,
for example in low visibility operations, is not currently provided at Hobart Airport in light of
current traffic levels and conditions. However, at time of writing HIAPL is actively engaged
with CASA to resolve conflicting messages in the relevant standards about scope and
purpose of such signage, as HIAPL is keen to provide cost-effective movement area
guidance signage properly suited to traffic types at Hobart Airport.
9.5
Airline Support Facilities
9.5.1
Catering
Existing Situation
In 2001 Alpha Flight Services transferred their Qantas and Ansett catering operation from
Cambridge to new purpose built facilities on the Airport. Shortly after completion of this
project Ansett Australia Ltd went into administration, and Qantas ceased catering operations
from Hobart Airport.
HIAPL purchased the flight catering facility from Alpha Flight Services in 2002, and the
facility has remained vacant since that time.
Future Development
With the requirement for increased car parking provision to accommodate forecast growth in
demand, it is HIAPL’s intention to relocate to this facility, taking 50% of the floor area, and
renting the remaining space to an appropriate tenant.
Beyond the forecast planning period (i.e. post 2029), further relocation of HIAPL’s offices
could eventually be required for continued development of the passenger terminal.
Page 60
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
9.5.2
Aircraft Re-fuelling
Existing Situation
In 2003 BP Australia Pty Ltd assumed primary responsibility for the refuelling operations,
following the commissioning of a new depot on a 50 metre by 50 metre allotment.
Current facilities at the depot include a small office, three jet fuel storage tanks of 110,000
litre capacity and 1 AVGAS tank of 55,000 litres.
Air BP currently makes 30 refuelling trips per day to the apron area using refuelling vehicles.
Figure 29
Air BP Fuelling Vehicle
Future Development
It is anticipated that BP’s new modern facilities will provide for Airport needs during the
forecast planning period.
With refuelling trips likely to double to 60 trips per day in line with aircraft movements,
refuelling vehicles will require more than the existing single access point as entry into the
apron area. Currently, if aircraft are ready to power out of a parking bay then refuelling
vehicles are prohibited to cross.
The revised GA apron layout provides a greater range of manoeuvring options for the
airside vehicles linking to a future tail-of-stand road around the passenger stands. This will
facilitate future access for fuelling vehicles.
9.5.3
Ground Service Support
Existing Situation
HIAPL provides an informal area to the south of the terminal for storage of equipment. It is
generally expected, however, that operators provide facilities of the standard they require in
areas leased from HIAPL.
Future Development
With a shift to power-in push-back operation, HIAPL could be required to buy a tug for
pushback operations.
Ground Service Equipment can be stored at the end of the proposed finger pier and to the
south of the terminal as currently.
Page 61
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
9.6
Utilities and Services
9.6.1
Electricity
Existing Situation
HIAPL distributes electricity at the airport. Aurora Energy supplies the Airport with high
voltage electricity through a high voltage (HV) 11kV feeder to a new HIA HV Switching
Station (completed 2009), located adjacent to Holyman Avenue. The HV Switching Station
comprises of 4 HV switches allocated as follows:

HIA South;

HIA East;

Proposed Direct Factory Outlet development; and

Spare for future.
The Airport distributes HV (11kV) electricity via its own ring main network (from HIA South
and HIA East) to two 2 MVA Substations, one serving the Terminal Precinct and one serving
the Commercial Precinct.
From the Terminal Precinct Substation low voltage (LV) power is distributed to the Terminal
Precinct services and tenants. While the Commercial Precinct Substation low voltage (LV)
power is distributed to tenants within the Commercial Precinct.
The main low voltage reticulation distribution system is supplied by two 2MVA substations,
one serving the Terminal Precinct and the other serving the Commercial Precinct. The
present maximum demand for both the Terminal and Commercial Precincts is approximately
0.9MVA, allowing for an approximate 100% spare capacity for future growth.
Emergency power is provided by three diesel generators connected to essential facilities
such as the terminals, airport lighting and some tenants. Two 350kVA (0.35MVA)
generators serve the essential electrical services within the Terminal Precinct. One 350kVA
generator serving the airfield lighting and air services operations, while the other 350kVA
generator serves the Terminal Building and Commercial Tenants.
One 62.5kVA (0.0625MVA) generator also serves the airfield lighting at the west end of the
runway.
Generators installed in 1956 and 1976 were replaced in 1980 and 1997. The existing
62.5kVA generator serving the airfield lighting installed in 1980 is nearing the end of its
useful life.
Future Development
Aurora Energy will supply power to cater for any future increase in demand that the Airport
may require. The existing HIAPL HV installation has been recently upgraded to allow for a
doubling in future demand.
Although the current demand is below capacity, the low voltage distribution system would
require to be upgraded inline with any future development to cater for any increase in
demand as such growth would require LV equipment and larger cable sizes.
Similarly, the essential power capacity supplied by HIAPL to the low voltage system is
limited by the size of the generators. The existing 62.5kVA generator serving the airfield
lighting is nearing the end of its useful life and should be replaced and or upgraded inline
with any expected growth.
Page 62
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
9.6.2
Telecommunications
Existing Situation
Telstra provides a single connection point for trunk services at Hobart Airport.
All internal reticulation of telecommunication infrastructure is provided by HIAPL. Telstra has
public telephones in the terminal buildings and leases space in the domestic terminal for
mobile network aerials and associated equipment.
HIAPL operates its own cabling and telephone system including a telephone exchange
located in the administration building. This infrastructure is used by HIAPL for its own
purposes and is shared with Airservices Australia.
Vodafone leases a site for a mobile telecommunications tower within the grounds of the
airport.
Currently the Southern Development area is only connected to the telecommunications
system by copper cable services which limit the telecommunications services that can be
provided.
Future Development
There is ample capacity within the existing trunk services network to service the existing
configuration of the building area. Future developments outside and beyond this area will
require infrastructure development.
The Air BP site within the Southern Development does not currently have access to real
time electronic data for aircraft arrival and departure times and fuel load requirements.
Currently the refuellers need to actively listen for the aircraft landing noise to know of their
arrival. The fuel load is either relayed by telephone/mobile communications or on the apron
area from the engineer. Electronic displays would greatly assist the planning and
coordination for aircraft refuelling.
The HIAPL fibre optic network is required to the Southern Development area and the Air BP
site to improve telecommunication services and allow access to real time electronic data to
assist the planning and coordination for aircraft refuelling.
9.6.3
Water Supply
Existing Situation
HIAPL funds and provides water supply reticulation and maintenance within the Airport
boundary, including all of the Airport's water reticulation infrastructure. Water is supplied to
the site through Hobart Water’s reticulation main.
HIAPL's current water supply system has a single supply point. Infrastructure consists of
200mm diameter main from the Clarence supply with 2 megalitres of storage. Potable water
is supplied to the site buildings and infill water to the firefighting water supply tanks.
The fire fighting water tanks have an effective capacity of approximately 500 kilolitres. Fire
Pumps have been upgraded and draw water from the tanks and elevate the water to the
appropriate pressure and flow rate to supply, fire hydrants and fire hose reels.
A Hobart Water main crosses the Airport within an easement to service the municipality of
Sorell.
Water demand is up to 100 kilolitres a day excluding fire usage.
Development within the airport precinct over the past 5 years has not significantly increased
the load on the existing infrastructure.
Future Development
Increased demands on services within the airport precinct have not currently increased by
amounts that would require upgrading of the existing infrastructure. However a steady
Page 63
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
increase in passenger numbers may necessitate some infrastructure upgrades within the
forecast planning period.
9.6.4
Sewerage
Existing Situation
HIAPL no longer provide the sewerage treatment system for the airport precinct. The HIAPL
plant ceased operation in December 2008 before being formally decommissioned in 2009.
This function was taken over in December 2008 by the new plant of Clarence City Council,
located on the Airport. The Clarence facility was taken over by the Regional Sewerage
Corporation (Southern Water) in July. The facility provides a higher level of treatment than
the HIAPL plant could and services a number of regional wastewater generators in addition
to the Airport. The facility also generates recycled water for distribution back into the region.
Future Development
The capacity of this new plant is significantly greater than demands placed on it by the
Airport alone.
The future development of the terminal will only have minor impacts on the sewerage
system.
Future commercial development in the precincts may require upgrading of some drain line
for increase capacity or installation of large pumps and rising mains to cater for additional
flows expected with commercial activity within the airport precinct.
9.6.5
Stormwater Drainage
Existing Situation
HIAPL provides and maintains a system of channels and piped and lined and unlined open
drains at Hobart to deal with stormwater from within the Airport as well as flows from
upstream of the Airport.
Drainage is generally from west to east via several channels and pipes into Sinclair Creek
which is affected by tides at its lower reaches. A limited area of the site drains to the north
through a drainage easement and into Barilla Bay.
Future Development
9.6.6
HIAPL commissioned a comprehensive flood study as part of the DFO Major Development
Plan project.
The drainage system is considered to be in reasonable condition and adequate for the
forecast period, although there is the probability of localised flooding following 1 in a 100
year storm event.
Additional drainage infrastructure may be necessary with future commercial land based
developments.
Page 64
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
10
OLS and PANS OPS
The protection of airspace around Hobart Airport now and in the future is provided by Part
12 of the Airports Act 1996, together with the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations
(APAR). Part 12 of the Airports Act sets out the protection of prescribed airspace in the
“interests of the safety, efficiency or regularity of existing or future air transport operations
into or out of an airport”.
The prescribed airspace is defined as the airspace above any part of either the Obstacle
Limitation Surfaces (OLS), or the Procedures for Air Navigation Services Airport Operations
(PANS-OPS) surfaces, whichever part represents the lower airspace surface for an airport.
The OLS describes the airspace boundaries for flight (take-off and landing) in the proximity
of the airport that should be kept free of obstacles. OLS is used for flying by sight using
Visual Flight Rules (VFR).
The PANS-OPS surfaces describe the minimum airspace required for Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) when flying without external visual reference to the ground, obstacles or other
aircraft.
The objective of prescribed airspace is to ensure that the area used, or proposed to be used
by aircraft arriving or departing from the Airport, is not adversely affected by the building of
structures or other activities. New structures should be designed, or other activities
controlled, to ensure that they do not intrude into the present and future prescribed airspace
surfaces.
To this end, the Airport has been supported by City of Clarence in its 2007 Planning
Scheme, which recognises that the Airport flight paths should be protected from
“inappropriate development” to allow “safe air navigation for aircraft approaching and
departing the airfield”.
It should be noted that the land uses proposed in Section 11 conform with the OLS and
PANS OPS surfaces shown below.
Figure 30 and Figure 31 below shows the OLS and PANS OPS graphically.
Page 65
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 30
Hobart - Obstacle Limitation Surfaces
Page 66
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 31
Hobart - PANS-OPS
Page 67
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
11
Land Use and Precinct Development
11.1
Background
Since privatisation of the Airport in 1998, the aviation industry has experienced turbulent
times in terms of stability and growth. Events such as those of September 11th 2001, the
collapse shortly thereafter of Ansett, SARS, terrorist events and the introduction of
additional Bass Strait ferries made aviation and financial planning difficult and volatile. From
record domestic passenger numbers in 2001, 2002 saw a significant reduction in business
confidence across aviation. This was followed by a period of resurgent growth in domestic
airline and airport business driven by the competition introduced by Impulse, then Virgin
Blue and Jetstar, and now Tiger Airways. However, since mid-2008, higher fuel prices have
led to a flattening of air traffic demand growth and now a year later the wider economic
downturn has led to signs of contraction across the domestic air market in Australia, with
consequent job cuts at a number of the major airlines and airports.
The above events have demonstrated the need for HIAPL to diversify its revenue base to
include not just aviation-related activities, but to include moves towards growth in
commercial revenue. Without this diversification, HIAPL could experience difficulty in
meeting the need to fund infrastructure expansion, maintenance and replacement. Greater
commercial revenue will drive opportunities for growth, containing charges to airlines and
passengers, and stimulating growth in tourism. In addition, through job creation during
construction and day-to-day operation of commercial facilities, development will benefit both
the Hobart region and the wider Tasmanian economy.
HIAPL’s first priority is of course as an airport operator and as a consequence HIAPL is fully
cognisant of its responsibility to maintain, improve and deliver high quality aeronautical
infrastructure and services. Indeed, the Government’s Green Paper on Aviation states quite
clearly the planning of any airport site must be consistent with its long-term development for
aeronautical use, and accordingly only areas not required for aviation purposes should be
considered for potential commercial development:
The Government respects the right of the airport operators to a reasonable return on capital
invested, but will not support proposals for the site to be used for commercial purposes
which prevent the site from reaching its full potential as an airport.
In addition, any such commercial development needs to be planned in an environmentally
sound manner with sufficient regard to the requirements and imperatives of surrounding
local communities. As such, commercial development on airport needs to be sensitive to
local needs.
11.2
HIAPL’s Commercial Vision
HIAPL is committed to appropriate commercial development in the context of continued and
growing aviation needs, environmental sensitivity and respect and integration with the local
community.
Against this backdrop, HIAPL has stated that the vision for the airport is a commercially
vibrant gateway and a dynamic force for Tasmanian business.
Accordingly HIAPL’s mission is to provide quality services and facilities to customers and
the maximisation of the value to all airport businesses and new commercial customers, for
the benefit of both stakeholders and the community.
These aims reach beyond the central function of an airport as merely an aeronautical
service provider to that of a key driver for regional economic and employment growth and
prosperity for Hobart and the wider Tasmanian region.
The economic impact of the Airport for Hobart and Tasmania is described in Section 3.
Page 68
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
11.3
Existing Commercial Development
Since the 2004 Master Plan, HIAPL has successfully completed an expansion of the
airport’s commercial offer and aviation-dependent businesses, including the following
facilities and activities:

public car parking, operated by HIAPL;

car rentals, operated by the major Australian and other local operators;

a privately operated hotel;

a privately operated tourist park

a privately operated child care centre;

a privately operated public fuel outlet;

privately operated fresh seafood and produce outlets

Australian Federal Police, and

Australian Quarantine Inspection Service facilities (AQIS).
In addition, a Direct Factory Outlet, DIY and bulky goods centre is approved for
development.
The new hotel, which opened on 1st December 2008, comprises 78 rooms, restaurant and
conference facilities, car parking and a complimentary shuttle bus service to the terminal.
The hotel offers passengers departing early or arriving late, the opportunity to stay in close
proximity to the terminal, thus enhancing passenger experience but also providing benefits
to the local community through the employment of 25 people.
Adjacent to the hotel is a fuel station which serves passengers, visitors, employees as well
as providing ready convenience for the rental car market. Again, this kind of development is
seen as providing an enhanced passenger and customer product, whilst also providing local
amenity and employment benefits.
In February 2008, Austexx announced that development of a Direct Factory Outlet, DIY and
bulky goods centre on airport land would proceed. The Major Development Plan (MDP) for
the project had already been approved by the Commonwealth in October 2007 after a
robust community consultation program. The scale of development is understood to be
53,000m2 as per the MDP approval building areas. HIAPL believe this development to be
positive for Tasmanian consumers who will enjoy greater retail choice and competitive
prices. In addition, significant benefits will also be accrued during the construction phase
and operation of this retail centre. It is estimated that the DFO development could provide
1,200 construction jobs and 600 full-time retail positions.
11.4
Commercial Property Assessment
HIAPL has engaged an external consultant to provide a strategic property vision for the
airport, evaluating trends customer demand, population, employment, tourism and economic
growth for Tasmania and Hobart as well as undertaking market assessment of indicators
related to retail, commercial, office, light industrial, warehousing and hotel/accommodation.
This study has provided an indicative direction for potential development of the precincts at
the airport as outlined below.
Given market forces, the opportunities and priorities for each of the precincts may change
through the forecast planning period but HIAPL, in full recognition of its responsibilities to
provide as much clarity as possible in the Master Plan, has endeavoured through the
application of this study to the Master Plan to provide a clear set of uses for all precincts.
Page 69
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
11.5
Alignment with External Planning
11.5.1 Federal Context
The Airports Act 1996, requires the Master Plan to specify HIAPL’s intentions for land use
and related development of the airport site, embracing land planning/zoning aspects
amongst other things.
The Act also requires the Master Plan, in specifying these intentions, to address the extent
(if any) of consistency with planning schemes in force under Tasmanian law.
For the purposes of these requirements of the Act, the Airports Regulations 1997 require the
Master Plan, where possible, to describe HIAPL’s proposals for use on the landside part of
the Airport with equivalent detail and consistent terminology as used in Tasmanian
legislation for land use planning, zoning and development.
Furthermore HIAPL acknowledges the direction of National Aviation Policy in the Australian
Government’s Green Paper, for “greater transparency and certainty about future land uses
at airports”.
HIAPL also appreciates the further guidance of the Commonwealth Department of
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government that the Master
Plan for Hobart Airport should meet the current standard of Airport Master Plans in its
indication to the public and the Minister of the intended land uses, its mapping of the uses,
and its explanation of permitted, intended and not-permitted uses and how the uses fit within
the overall plan for the airport.
11.5.2 State and Regional Context
In terms of the interest of the State of Tasmania in regional and local land use planning, the
Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority’s Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project is
a significant planning initiative being undertaken to produce agreed consolidated regional
land use planning strategies for the region and, subsequently contemporary and consistent
planning schemes for each local council within the region.
The Project aims to synthesise existing local, regional and state strategies into a cohesive
plan for the future development of Southern Tasmania. Its regional commercial and
industrial planning strategies will be developed and finalised through 2010.
There are a number of State planning initiatives in progress which to varying degrees could
assist, upon completion, in achieving alignment of planning within the Airport. These include
the above regional planning project, the Tasmanian Resource Planning and Development
Commission’s (RPDC’s) Planning Directive No.1 model currently under review, the draft
Southern Integrated Transport Plan by DIER, Clarence’s Retail-Commercial Land Use
Study, and the water and sewerage infrastructure planning processes of the newly formed
regional water authority, Southern Water.
As appropriate, HIAPL aims in this Master Plan to respond to each of the various elements
in the above context, to identify and describe its intended land uses for the Hobart Airport
site.
11.5.3 Local Context
Recognising the above national and regional context, HIAPL has determined that the
identifications and descriptions will be consistent, where possible, with the terms and intent
of land use of the relevant local authority - in Hobart Airport's case, the City of Clarence.
Hobart Airport lies entirely within the City of Clarence.
The terms and intent of land use for the City of Clarence are set out in its Planning Scheme
2007, as amended on 17th March 2009.
During the life of this Master Plan, it is anticipated that there will be convergence between
local planning definitions as described in the Scheme and those set out by the RPDC’s
Planning Directive No. 1 referred to above. The 2007 Clarence Scheme was developed
Page 70
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
under the existing directive and Clarence acknowledges that the reviewed document is not
yet able to be used for consideration in aligning Airport land use planning. At this stage,
there are both overlaps and discrepancies between the Clarence Scheme and the reviewed
Directive.
Accordingly, HIAPL has considered the definitions and uses Clarence currently uses in
developing this Master Plan and focussed most of its land use alignments with Clarence,
where alignment can be achieved.
The Clarence Planning Scheme identifies the future development and operation of the
Airport as critical to the economic development of the area and, in addition, it envisages
“economic development opportunities [on] the Airport site.”
The Planning Scheme contains four relevant specific zones plus a series of Special Use
zones. The four specific zones, and the uses to which they can be put, subject to applicable
development standards, are as set out in the following table.
In setting out the full uses of the Planning Scheme, it is recognised that certain specific uses
appearing in the Scheme are not permitted on Hobart Airport under the Act and the
Commonwealth’s lease to HIAPL of the airport site. This Master Plan does not propose any
such uses.
Industry
Commercial
Local Business
Recreation
Call Centre
Civic Building
Civic Building
Agriculture
Car park
Home occupation
Home Occupation
Active Recreation
Civic Building
Minor Utility
Minor Utility
Minor Utility
Fuel Depot
Passive Recreation
Passive Recreation
Passive Recreation
General Industry
Active Recreation
Veterinary
Establishment
Aquaculture
Home Occupation
Adult Sex Book and
Sex Aid
Establishment
Local Shop
Camping and
Caravan Park
Light Industry
Amusement
Machine Complex
Take Away Food
Shop
Community Building
Local Shop
Call Centre
Active Recreation
Extractive Industry
Minor Utility
Car Park
Amusement
Machine Centre
Educational or
Cultural Centre
Motor Repair
Garage
Passive recreation
Child Care Centre
Car Park
Forestry
Community Building
Child Care Centre
Major Utility
Plant Nursery /
Consulting Rooms /
Health Centre
Community Building
Restaurant
Garden Centre
Corrective
Institution
Hotel
Take Away Food
Shop
Service industry
Education / Cultural
Establishment
Major Utility
Tourist
Accommodation
Store
Funeral Parlour
Tourist Operation
Taxi Depot
Hospital Services
Motor Repair
Garage
Motor Vehicle Sales
or Hire
Warehouse
Hotel
Multiple Dwelling
Woodyard
Local Shop
Office
Abattoir
Major Utility
Place of Worship
Active Recreation
Motel
Plant Nursery /
Garden Centre
Agriculture
Motor Vehicle Sales
or Hire
Restaurant
Page 71
Any undefined use
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Industry
Commercial
Local Business
Recreation
Animal
Accommodation
Multiple Dwelling
Service Station
Community Building
Office
Shop
Corrective
Institution
Extractive Industry
Fuel Depot
Place of Worship
Single Dwelling
Plant Nursery /
Garden Centre
Take Away Food
Shop
Funeral Parlour
Restaurant
Any undefined use
General Industry
Service Station
Local Shop
Shop
Major Utility
Shopping Centre
Motor Vehicle Sales
or Hire
Single Dwelling
Office
Specialist / Bulky
Goods Store
Place of Worship
Store
Restaurant
Take Away Food
Shop
Rural Industry
Taxi Depot
Saleyard
Tourist
Accommodation
Scrap Yard
Tourist Operation
Service Station
Veterinary
Establishment
Shop (in
Warehouse)
Warehouse
Specialist / Bulky
Goods Store
Any undefined use
Take Away Shop
Timber Mill
Transport Depot
Veterinary
Establishment
Any undefined use
Table 6
Clarence 2007 Planning Scheme Zones and Uses
The Scheme also identifies purposes for these zones, inter alia:
•
•
•
•
Industry – To provide a range of industrial activities that promote economic
development within the City, in a manner that does not affect the safety and amenity
of the local community.
Commercial – To encourage a range of business centres for retailing and other
complementary commercial, entertainment and community uses.
Local Business – To provide for business activities that meet the daily needs of the
local community, in a manner that does not affect the safety and amenity of the area.
Recreation – To provide for uses which support recreational activities or which may
be interim uses that do not prejudice future recreational activities.
Hobart Airport is a Special Use Zone (“SU 5 Commonwealth Government”) within the
Scheme. The very limited and vague uses described for SU 5 give no useful guide for the
complex operational and commercial land use planning needs of an airport on such land.
The Scheme’s other zones are considered not to be applicable at the Airport in
consideration of uses not allowable under Commonwealth constraint (Residential, Low
Density Residential, Rural Residential, Village) or of the community’s objectives for
Page 72
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
economic growth evident in planning in the immediate area (Rural, Intensive Agriculture,
Landscape and Skyline Conservation).
HIAPL engaged both Clarence, at Council level, and other local and State representatives at
a Master Plan workshop on 4th June 2009. HIAPL’s objectives in terms of land use and
commercial development were articulated to Federal, State and Local Government
stakeholders. No written feedback resulted but verbal feedback at the time was positive. A
request was made that Precinct uses reference with local or regional planning schemes and
this consideration has been made.
HIAPL again engaged Clarence on the Master Plan, at Council and senior Management
level, at its regular stakeholder meeting on 2nd October 2009, during the public comment
period for the preliminary draft Master Plan. The workshops provided the opportunity for
Clarence to understand the Airport's proposed development in terms of their planning
cycles. Feedback was again positive. The meeting also heard Council’s presentation on its
local and regional planning, including the importance of Hobart Airport.
All development on the Airport will be undertaken according to HIAPL’s Development
Guidelines which have been prepared by HIAPL with expert consultant assistance, and in
consultation with the Clarence City Council and other agencies with planning and
development interests.
The Guidelines will be those considered appropriate to address planning, environment, and
amenity issues and able to provide a basis for assessing development proposals. Where the
opportunity arises, further environmental enhancements are considered in these Guidelines.
11.6
Precincts
HIAPL has developed its land use planning, by way of its proposed precinct uses, in what it
believes to be an entirely consistent way with the Clarence Planning Scheme. HIAPL has
applied these uses for those aspects of airport operations and development that are not
aviation-related or airport-specific and therefore not covered by the Scheme.
On advice from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and
Local Government, the precincts, and land use planning for them, do not include the two
parcels of airport land owned freehold by HIAPL. These parcels of land are subject to the
Clarence Planning Scheme.
The 2009 Master Plan accordingly identifies ten precincts, which is an increase in detail
from the four zones identified in the 2004 Master Plan.
The precincts and the two parcels of freehold land are shown in Figure 1 and Appendix A.
This increase in detail reflects a level of refinement over and above the potential uses
identified in 2004 and also the various elements of context described in Section 11.5,
including the direction of the National Aviation Policy Green Paper for greater transparency
and certainty about future land uses at airports.
Figure 1 shows the precinct plan envisaged for the period 2009 to 2029 and shows potential
land uses for each precinct as well as each precinct’s overall area.
The precincts, their alignment with the Clarence Planning Scheme and the uses proposed
for them are described below. Notional precinct road and subdivision plans are provided
where relevant. Use terminology is consistent with the Planning Scheme uses - where
exact terminology has not been suitable (for example, where actual uses have been
developed or specific activities such as Antarctic operations are envisaged) its consistency
is still apparent. Figure 1 and Appendix A show how the precincts fit within the overall plan
for the airport.
Page 73
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

Terminal Precinct
Zoning alignment: None. The Clarence Planning Scheme contains no zoning suited
to the special mixed nature of the terminal precinct of a capital city airport.
Uses: Accordingly, in the absence of guidance for this particular area in the
Clarence Scheme, HIAPL has deferred to uses for this precinct consistent with the
uses made of terminal precincts at capital city and other major airports nationally in
Australia, inter alia:
- the processor function of the airport in the form of passenger terminals
- supporting terminal and apron infrastructure
- roads and car parking
- car rental shop fronts and support facilities
- retail
- hotels and convention centres
- tourism services
- valet services
- government agency operations
- public transport interchanges
- aviation related storage
- other interim uses pending aviation related expansion.
Subdivision / roads: (As per Figure 1 / Appendix A)

Precinct 1
Zoning alignment: Commercial
Uses: Consistent with the intent of Clarence Commercial zoning, including retail and
bulky goods.
Precinct 1 includes the approved Direct Factory Outlet (DFO) development,
homemaker centre and bulky goods.
In total, the precinct delivers approximately 60,000m2 of retail space surrounding a
centralised car park.
Subdivision / roads:
Figure 32
Precincts 1 and 2 - Detail
Page 74
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

Precinct 2
Uses: Consistent with the intent of Clarence Commercial zoning, including hotel,
tourist accommodation, fuel station, fuel retail, existing child care centre, kennels,
other retail and restaurants
The most developed currently of all the precincts, Precinct 2 already contains the
hotel and fuel station, tourist park, an existing child care centre and a camper van
hire outlet. It is proposed that additional retail / mixed use development occur along
the southern part of Loop Road benefiting from frontage to passing traffic.
Subdivision / roads: (Substantially complete)

Precinct 3
Zoning alignment: Industry
Uses: Consistent with the intent of Clarence Industry zoning, including aviationrelated businesses, industry, freight logistics and fabrication.
Precinct 3 already contains Customs and Quarantine dog kennels, a camper van
hire outlet, a seafood processing and retail outlet and a heavy equipment hire outlet.
Prominently located adjacent to the Tasman Highway and the airside, Precinct 3 is
considered to have commercial potential, including for a range of airport-related and
other industries that can capitalise on these proximities.
Figure 33

Precinct 3 - Detail
Precinct 4
Uses: Consistent with the intent of Clarence Commercial zoning, including
commercial space, and aviation-related businesses, such as retail, showroom, sales
yards, convenience and other retail, commercial uses, commercial aviation office
accommodation, Antarctic administration/operations centre and hotel
accommodation.
These intended uses draw on the valuable well-located and flat development land
adjacent to Holyman Avenue.
Page 75
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
8.4 hectares of land continues to be identified for Commercial land use as in the
2004 Master Plan. The edge of this area is demarcated by the swale drain to cater
for stormwater runoff and disposal from the proposed DFO site opposite Precinct 4
in Precinct 1.
As stated in HIAPL’s Development Objectives in Section 2, HIAPL is proud to be
involved with the air link to Antarctica through Skytraders. With regard to this
operation, HIAPL envisages a potential use of Precinct 4 for headquarters and
aviation-related facilities in support of the Australian Antarctic Division, and
potentially for other Antarctic nations, subject to this Precinct offering sufficient
space and suitable layout to achieve this important objective once its detailed
parameters have been determined. In addition, other opportunities would exist for
commercial and office uses given the prime location along the main access road
into the Airport.
Commercial development will be undertaken so as not to reduce the water holding
capacity provided by the swale drain which runs along the edge of Precinct 4.
Figure 34

Precinct 4 – Detail
Precinct 5
Uses: Consistent with the intent of Clarence Commercial zoning, including
commercial office space, trade centres, retail and car rental -related uses.
Precinct 5 has the potential to be attractive for a range of development types. It is
anticipated that this proximity to the Terminal Precinct could attract commercial
development including those with direct relationships to air travel and aviation
services as well as non-aviation use.
Proximity to Holyman Avenue is anticipated to also attract other commercial
developments with the potential to create an office / business park arrangement.
Page 76
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 35

Precinct 6
Uses: Consistent with the intent of Clarence Commercial zoning, including food
preparation and distribution and other logistics, light industrial use and associated
storage.
HIAPL envisages Precinct 6 as offering a unique set of land uses that build off the
surrounding existing food-based commercial activities such as Barilla Bay (oysters)
and to the east of the airport itself agriculture including berries and viticulture. The
precinct accordingly has potential for a unique food preparation, food distribution
and light industrial use.
Figure 36
Page 77
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

Precinct 7
Zoning alignment: Commercial *
Uses: Consistent with the intent of Clarence Commercial zoning, including a Centre
of Excellence for aviation education and training.
Through its proximity to the airport runway, this precinct has the potential to deliver
a range of complementary aviation uses, including a possible Centre of Excellence
Aviation, education (TAFE) and training facilities as well as associated commercial
and aviation-related facilities.
The precinct is the most remote with respect to other activity within the City of
Clarence.
* Whilst the zoning alignment of Precinct 7 is Commercial, the commercial
intentions involved have an aviation focus for which there is no specific recognition
in the Clarence Scheme. The intended aviation activities may relate to uses aligned
with an Industry zoning of the Clarence Scheme; for example, Transport Depot.
Airport land abutting Precinct 7 is freehold and thus directly covered by the City of
Clarence Planning Scheme (zoned Recreation). HIAPL’s development of the land
is required to undergo a different process to that applying to the Commonwealth
land holding.
HIAPL and the City of Clarence have agreed that they expect and intend to work
with each other to review the current Recreation zoning to zoning more appropriate
to the expected eventual use of the land. This would be done in concert with the
State, as necessary, to ensure the respective mutual intentions of the State and
HIAPL in selling and purchasing the land can be realised.
Figure 37

Precinct 8
Zoning alignment: Commercial *
Uses: Consistent with the intent of Clarence Commercial zoning, including General
Aviation, freight and logistics
Precinct 8 already contains four general aviation aircraft hangars, the aviation fuel
depot, the Southern Water regional wastewater treatment plant, a mechanical
services facility and HIAPL operations facilities. With strong ties to terminal and
apron areas, Precinct 8 offers a range of opportunity to accommodate
complementary aviation uses including large warehouse type uses such a freight
and freight logistics.
Page 78
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
* Whilst the zoning alignment of Precinct 8 is Commercial, the commercial
intentions involved have a strong aviation focus for which there is no specific
recognition in the Clarence Scheme. The intended aviation activities may relate to
uses aligned with an Industry zoning of the Clarence Scheme; for example, Fuel
Depot, Motor Repair Garage.
Airport land abutting Precinct 8 is freehold and thus directly covered by the City of
Clarence Planning Scheme (zoned Recreation). HIAPL’s development of the land
is required to undergo a different process to that applying to the Commonwealth
land holding.
HIAPL and the City of Clarence have agreed that they expect and intend to work
with each other to review the current Recreation zoning to zoning more appropriate
to the expected eventual use of the land. This would be done in concert with the
State, as necessary, to ensure the respective mutual intentions of the State and
HIAPL in selling and purchasing the land can be realised.
Figure 38

Precinct 9
Zoning alignment: Industry *
Uses: Consistent with the intent of Clarence Commercial zoning, including Airside
Freight Facilities
Precinct 9 already includes an airline-related freight facility and a fresh produce
facility. Precinct 9 offers the potential for the consolidation and expansion of freight
uses and associated apron and the inclusion of related aviation uses.
Access to the precinct is possible via the redeveloped Loop Road or Holyman
Avenue.
* By virtue of its location abutting the Terminal Precinct, Precinct 9 can absorb
terminal and/or terminal apron expansion should this be required in the longer term
future. As noted above, the Clarence Planning Scheme contains no zoning suited
to terminal precinct activity.
Page 79
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 39
Kennel facilities are highly operationally important to the aviation activities of Quarantine,
Customs and the Police. The Clarence Scheme provides for kennels (Animal
Accommodation) only in the Industry zone. However, when the need is identified by
stakeholders for new or replacement kennels, locations will be sought which HIAPL and
stakeholders can agree meet their operational requirements regardless of precinct.
This circumstance may also apply to other operational needs from time to time.
11.7
Surface Access and Transport Connections
It will be important to maintain the principle of priority for terminal users, particularly over
development traffic. The number of access points along Holyman Avenue is critical and will
require careful consideration of actual flows as demand increases.
As noted above, increased development traffic will require retention of the existing
secondary access point to the airport from the Tasman Highway connecting to Loop Road,
HIAPL intends to work with DIER in the future to understand the requirements for and the
impacts of this secondary access point in the future.
In addition, development in Precinct 6 provides an opportunity to improve the Tasman /
Pittwater Road intersection if compatible with land use and subject to discussions with the
State and Clarence Council.
11.8
Environment
Environmental impact and mitigation are documented in full in the next section.
No adjustment from the 2005 AES is required for land use planning, as described above.
11.9
Aviation Safety
In terms of building construction and materials, CASA requires that, where facilities are
constructed, sensible cladding and roofing materials are used to minimise the possibility of
glare effects and also that glass for buildings is used in a manner to minimise reflectivity and
glare.
CASA also recommends that all onsite (external) lighting be lit down from the horizontal, to
minimise glare. This will be done subject to assessment confirming the actual need at the
time. HIAPL also notes that certain back-lit signs are and will continue to be required on the
Airport.
Page 80
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
12
Environmental Management
The Airports Act 1996 requires the Master Plan to include an assessment of environmental
issues that might reasonably be expected to be associated with the proposals outlined in the
Master Plan, along with plans for dealing with the identified issues.
This section describes the Environmental Management Framework at Hobart Airport. It
identifies the potential environmental issues that may arise from the proposals in the Master
Plan and describe plans for dealing with them. Environmental issues as they relate to dayto-day operations at the airport are considered in detail in the Airport Environment Strategy
(AES).
Changes in airside and land use planning proposed over the 20 year planning timeframe
relevant to environmental issues at the airport are described in previous sections of this
Master Plan. These are summarised as follows:

Increased capacity on the airside in terms of taxiways and aprons and expansion of
the terminal, freight and GA aprons;

Upgrades to existing airport access roads or the development of new roads and

Development of airport precincts to accommodate aviation and freight facilities and
other uses such as commercial, retail, accommodation and bulk storage.
These have the potential to have an impact on the environment at the airport and/or the
adjacent areas and need to be managed through the monitoring and management controls
that are implemented through the Airport Environmental Management System (EMS), which
is currently being developed by HIAPL. A draft was submitted to the Airport Environment
Officer in March 2009. The EMS will include Site Management Procedures which have
already been developed as identified in the 2005 AES.
12.1
Environmental Management at the Airport
Environmental issues at the Airport are administered through the Airports Act 1996, the
Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997 and the Airports (Building Control)
Regulations 1996. These Acts are administered by the Department of Infrastructure,
Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, through the Airport Environment
Officer and the Airport Buildings Controller for the Airport.
S116 (f) of the Airports Act 1996 states environmental management includes measures for
preventing, controlling or reducing the environmental impact associated with airport
operations. HIAPL is committed to these measures as set out in this Master Plan and
through the Airport Environment Strategy of 1st November 2005 (due for revision and update
in 2010).
In addition, some State Environmental Legislation is also applicable to the Airport. For
example, licensing of the new Wastewater Treatment Plant and its environmental and
operational conditions have been set at State level. HIAPL is no longer responsible for this
facility though it is located on Airport land. Other areas of State responsibility include
Contaminated Sites Notification, Disposal of Contaminated Soil, Controlled Waste, Air
Pollution and Dangerous Goods and Environmental Conservation. Commonwealth
Environmental Legislation is overarching but the above areas of State Legislation are
implemented when applicable.
HIAPL is responsible for the management of environmental issues at the airport that are
associated with its operations. Tenants and contractors on the airport site are responsible
for the environmental management of their operations. Under Part 4 of the Airports
(Environment Protection) Regulations 1997, an airport operator or tenant must take all
reasonable and practicable measures to prevent, or where prevention is not reasonable or
practical, must minimise, the generation of pollution.
Page 81
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
HIAPL recognises the importance of maintaining and enhancing the quality of the airport
environment. The framework for environmental management at the airport is shown in
Figure 40 below.
Figure 40
Environmental Management Framework for Hobart
HIAPL’s Environmental Policy provides the context for the Airport EMS and describes
HIAPL’s commitment to identify and manage significant environmental impacts in
developing and managing the Airport. When finalised, the Airport EMS will provide the
overarching framework for the management of environmental impacts at the Airport and
form the basis for continual improvement.
The 2005 AES contains targets and objectives and commitments for the management of the
Airport’s environment in the context of its ongoing operation and development. These
commitments and management procedures will be implemented through the Airport EMS.
The AES and Master Plan are updated every 5 years in accordance with the Airports Act
1996.
Since the release of the AES in 2005 and the previous Master Plan in 2004, there have
been some updates to the environmental studies, issues and environmental management
processes at the airport site. Where updated environmental information is available, this has
been incorporated into the Master Plan and will also need to be reflected in the AES due for
release in 2010. This is in addition to further updates that are likely to occur during AES
preparation.
The stakeholder engagement undertaken in the preparation of the Master Plan has included
consideration of environmental issues with State and Federal government representatives.
The stakeholder engagement process is described in Section 5.
Page 82
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
12.2
Identification of Environmental Issues
Specific environmental issues that might reasonably be expected to arise from the Master
Plan implementation include:

Impacts to flora and fauna through the development of or disturbance to vegetated
areas;

Impacts to indigenous or historic cultural heritage sites;

Impacts to hydrology and water quality on airport or surrounding areas due to an
increase in impervious surfaces and from potential pollution sources;

Use of natural resources;

Waste disposal;

Handling and storage of hazardous substances;

Impacts to air and soil quality;

Greenhouse gas production;

Ground-based noise generation from aircraft or traffic on airport (the impacts of inflight aircraft noise are assessed in Section 8); and

Visual amenity impacts.
Through the range of measures that are in place under the AES and the draft Airport EMS,
HIAPL expects that the identified impacts can be successfully managed. The specific
measures in place to manage these potential impacts are outlined in the following sections.
12.3
Plans for dealing with Environmental Issues
This section briefly describes the baseline environmental values at the airport and the plans
for dealing with the environmental issues outlined above. Further detail on the baseline
environmental values of the airport is provided in the AES.
12.3.1 Flora and Fauna
Baseline and Identification of Issues
A number of botanical surveys of the airport have been undertaken since 1991, the most
recent of which was a vegetation assessment undertaken in 2005 (North Barker 2005).
Information from the ecologist who undertook the vegetation assessment, indicates that the
information is still considered to be current as there have not been any major modifications
to the vegetation areas on the airport since that time. On the other hand, the Tasmanian
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and Environment (DPIPWE) is of the view
that there may have been changes in certain areas affected by this Master Plan, as outlined
below. Accordingly, those areas will be resurveyed in preparation of the 2010 AES.
The information below summarises the key findings of the 2005 assessment.
The North Barker vegetation assessment identified 12 recognised communities of native
vegetation on the site and provided an assessment of the environmental significance of
these communities, as summarised below. The AES provides further detail on the
classification of the communities and species at the airport and their environmental
significance.
Major native vegetation types at the site include eucalypt woodland, wattle woodland,
grassland and saltmarsh. Communities of significance include:

White gum (Eucalyptus vominialis) heathy woodland;

Black Gum (E. Ovata) heathy woodland;
Page 83
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

Lowland Poa grassland; and

Saltmarsh.
Much of the vegetation present at the airport has been structurally and compositionally
determined by previous management and there have been changes to drainage and soil
structure brought about from previous development.
Ten flora species listed under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995
(TSPA) have been recorded at the Airport, one of these is also listed in the Commonwealth
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act):

Milford Leek Orchid Prasophyllum milfordense (Endangered under the EPBC Act);

Prickly Woodruff Asperula scoparia scoparia;

Siebers Daisy Brachyscome sieberi;

Lemon Beauty Heads Calocephalus citreus;

Slender Buttons Cotula vulgaris australasica;

Southern Houndstongue Cynoglossum australe;

Gentle Rush Juncus amabilis;

Leafy Fireweed Senecio squarrosus;

Narrow Leaf New Holland Daisy Vittadinia muelleri;

Woolly New Holland Daisy Vittadinia gracilis; and

Round Leaf Wilsonia Wilsonia rotundifolia.
Although not recorded at the site during previous surveys, other listed flora species have the
potential to occur at the Airport based on previous studies in surrounding areas.
In June 2009, the ecological community Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania, based on
Poa labillardieri grassland became listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Flora species protected under the State’s
Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 are present as part of Poa communities on the
Airport, as referenced below.
The North Barker vegetation assessment and previous studies including a fauna
assessment focused on the site of the Direct Factory Outlet, have considered the potential
fauna habitat at the Airport with particular emphasis on habitat for threatened fauna species.
The Airport offers a range of habitat types and forms part of a larger matrix of native
vegetation beyond the airport boundary to the north and east. Whilst not recorded on the
site, the eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii gunnii), the spotted-tail quoll
(Dasyurus maculates maculates s.lat), the eastern quoll (Dasyrurus viverinus) and the
tussock skink (Pseudemoia pagenstecheri) are known to occur in surrounding areas. These
species are listed under state and or federal legislation.
A number of wading birds and migratory species may periodically utilise airspace above the
airport and there are other listed bird species have the potential to occur at the Airport
based on available habitat and their presence in surrounding areas. Invertebrate, amphibian
and aquatic species are also known to inhabit Sinclair Creek and the surrounding saltmarsh
areas.
The Airport is in proximity to the saline wetlands in Pittwater/ Orielton Lagoon which is listed
as an Australian Ramsar Site due to its importance as a summer feeding ground for
migratory birds.
Introduced fauna and weeds, some of which are Declared Weeds under the Tasmanian
Weed Management Act 1999 are also known to occur at the Airport. These species have
the potential to affect ecological processes and threaten native flora and fauna.
Page 84
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
The North Barker vegetation assessment and previous studies informed the development of
a number of discrete green areas that were established in the 1999 AES, updated in the
2004 Master Plan and again in the 2005 AES to enable appropriate management of the
identified significant plant communities on the airport. These green zones and vegetation
communities at the airport are shown in Figure 41.
The 2009 Master Plan maintains the green zones and areas identified in the 2005 AES.
As a result of the listing of the grassland community referred to above, HIAPL recognises
that a referral will need to be made under the EPBC Act when development of listed
grassland is proposed. In particular, HIAPL acknowledges and would respect that any
change to its green zonings would need to be achieved by working within the EPBC referral
framework with DEWHA and, with approval from that process, by submitting a minor
variation of the Master Plan to the Minister for approval.
HIAPL anticipates that conditions would form part of such approvals, about matters of the
type that HIAPL is adopting, and that these conditions would need to be reflected in the
Vegetation Management Agreement (VMA) to be concluded between HIAPL and the State.
Page 85
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 41
Green Zones, Heritage and Vegetation Areas
Page 86
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Management Strategies
The details of the management strategy for the green zones will be finalised by HIAPL, in
consultation with the Commonwealth’s Airport Environment Officer (AEO), with the State
Government in the context of conclusion of the VMA between HIAPL and the State. The
VMA aims to establish an appropriate and effective monitoring regime for green zones at
the Airport. The mutual objective for HIAPL and the State Government of the VMA, subject
to it being able to be executed by the parties and as foreshadowed in the 2005 AES, is that
these areas be conserved and in some instances rehabilitated.
HIAPL is committed to the active management of values represented in the green zones to
maintain and enhance them.
Other measures are also in place at the airport to manage the potential impacts to flora and
fauna during day-to-day airport activities and future impacts that may arise from the
implementation of the Master Plan. The Airport Environment Management System (EMS)
establishes a series of management objectives and specific action plans aimed at
preserving and enhancing the ecological values on-site. This includes Site Management
Procedures specific to the management of identified green areas such as revegetation and
landscape maintenance, burning procedures, mowing and other ground disturbance, weed
control and feral animal control. Through the EMS, the effectiveness of conservation
measures will be able to be measured using performance indicators to enable continuous
improvement.
The potential impacts to flora and fauna that may arise with each new development can be
managed in part through the Land Use Precinct Development Guidelines that are in place at
HIAPL. The guidelines are intended to assist lessees and developers in planning their
projects. They specify that only works and activities consistent with the objectives of the
prospective VMA, where there is an interaction between the areas covered by the VMA and
the works or activities, will be permitted pending entry into an agreement, and any
subsequent such works and land uses must be consistent with the VMA.
There is also a requirement for construction projects to have a construction environmental
management plan (CEMP) based on the model developed in the course of approval of
recent projects in conjunction with the AEO. This requirement aims to prevent any indirect
impacts to green zones through poor construction site management and to minimise or
prevent the loss of threatened species that may occur outside the green zones, consistent
with the VMA.
In addition, major projects at the airport, if any, that are likely to have a significant
environmental impact would require a Major Development Plan under the Airports Act 1996,
enabling environmental issues and site specific management measures to be considered by
the Federal Government as part of the approval process.
Management measures for possible indirect impacts to flora and fauna that may result
during implementation of the Master Plan, for example as a result of waste management,
soil or water pollution or the handling of hazardous substances, are described in the
following sections.
HIAPL will undertake monitoring of flora where prospective development might affect it.
Concurrent monitoring of the fauna species described and identified above will occur at this
time.
Management of flora and fauna will give priority to the safety implications with respect to
bird or wildlife hazards. All habitats on Airport land will be managed in accordance with
CASA safety requirements.
Page 87
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
12.3.2 Cultural Heritage - Indigenous and Historic Heritage
Two indigenous cultural heritage surveys have been undertaken at the Airport, most
recently in 2008. The most recent survey was undertaken to build on the initial preliminary
survey and to develop appropriate management strategies for the identified sites, in
consultation with the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (TALSC).
The initial survey identified 16 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites at the Airport, of which 13
are still under HIAPL management and four were able to be re-identified in the most recent
survey. Of the 13 sites, five are surface scatters of stone artefacts and the remainder are
isolated stone artefacts. The largest sites are two scatters located on low-lying beach ridges
on the eastern side of the runway. It is likely that these now separated scatters are
remnants of an earlier much larger occupation site. Five of the identified Aboriginal heritage
sites are located in green areas and are therefore protected from the impact of future
development. Other sites are located alongside Holyman Avenue, in the vicinity of the
airport terminal or on the north-eastern side of the airstrip.
Whilst the identified sites have varying scientific significance due to the integrity, site
structure, site contents and representativeness of the site to the area, all of the Aboriginal
sites located during the surveys are considered significant to the Tasmanian Aboriginal
Community including the landscape surrounding theses sites. The sites are shown in Figure
41.
There are also two items of historical heritage interest at the Airport. These are Llanherne
House and a University Radio Observatory. Llanherne House, situated on top of Llanherne
Hill, is currently being shared as HIAPL meeting and tenant office space. Parts of it were
built in the 1830s as part of the original European settlements of the Lewis family. It is a
small stone cottage with later wooden extensions. Some original internal features remain
intact. The house is listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register. The sandstone well at the
rear of the building has been protected and made a visible feature in the area.
A University Radio Observatory, apparently the first of its type in Australia, was constructed
in the west of the site in the 1950s; however there are no remains of this observatory on the
site.
Potential impacts to cultural heritage during the implementation of the Master Plan may
arise through the disturbance or damage to known sites, or through disturbance to sites that
have not previously been identified. Measures to manage these impacts are outlined below.
The most recent Aboriginal Cultural Heritage survey at the Airport informed the development
of an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the airport site. This plan provides
management recommendations for each of the sites identified at the Airport. The
recommendations have been considered in the context of HIAPL’s current management
measures for heritage sites, as outlined below.
HIAPL will comply with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 to protect Aboriginal relics and sites subject to the
Acts and in particular will ensure care is taken during development or maintenance activities
in and around areas of known significant Aboriginal sites. Site Management Procedures
associated with the AES and draft EMS provide for this and may include fencing of sites to
prevent accidental disturbance. No intentional destruction or damage of a relic or site can
occur without a permit issued under the Act.
Before any development disturbance in the vicinity of known sites, a review of past site
disturbances during construction activities at the Airport will need to be undertaken to clearly
identify disturbed and undisturbed areas and the area will need to be assessed by a suitably
qualified Aboriginal Heritage Officer. In areas that have not been previously disturbed by
Page 88
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
construction activity, the Aboriginal Heritage Officer’s survey could be done in consultation
with TALSC. In areas that have been previously disturbed by construction activity, the
Aboriginal Heritage Officer will attend to initial site clearing works to identify any isolated
artefacts and to relocate them to a culturally appropriate alternative site if required.
HIAPL will continue to consult with TALSC on all matters pertaining to Aboriginal site
management throughout the course of developments at the Airport. If at any stage
suspected Aboriginal cultural material is uncovered during the course of a development or
any other activity, work in the area will cease immediately and the TALSC will be contacted
for advice.
HIAPL will ensure that all necessary approvals steps are taken prior to any disturbance to
Llanherne House. These will include approval under the Historical Cultural Heritage Act
1995 for any development or other works that may affect the nature or appearance of the
site and assessment in accordance with the EPBC Act.
12.3.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
The Airport is within the Meehan Range Catchment on a low lying plain, and has largely flat
topography between three and six metres above sea level. Sinclair Creek is a modified
drain and is the major watercourse on the airport, discharging to Pitt Water. The eastern
side of the airport contains a saltmarsh area associated with Sinclair Creek in a slight
natural depression that is subject to tidal inundation.
Waterbodies adjacent to the Airport include Barilla Bay near the northern airport boundary,
Pitt Water near the eastern airport boundary, and Frederick Henry Bay which abuts the
southern airport boundary.
The quality of the surface waters in Sinclair Creek are mainly influenced by runoff from
upstream agricultural and rural residential developments and from the airport itself. Until
December 2008, the airport wastewater treatment plant discharged effluent to Sinclair
Creek, however this wastewater treatment plant has now been decommissioned and airport
wastewater is treated by the Clarence City Council regional wastewater treatment plant.
This removes a significant source of pollution to Sinclair Creek.
Although the HIAPL wastewater treatment plant has now been decommissioned, HIAPL is
required to continue monitoring of Sinclair Creek for a period of 2 years.
The new centralised Cambridge plant operated by Southern Water was designed to
predominantly discharge treated effluent to the Coal River Valley reuse scheme. This goal
has not been fully achieved during the first year of operation, due to salinity of the current
treated effluent, and the treated effluent has had to be discharged to the original outfall
location into Sinclair Creek under the terms of the environmental approval of the plant. The
authorities and the operator of the plant anticipate that it will be possible to reduce effluent
salinity and minimise the effluent volume needing to be discharged to waterways in the
coming years. HIAPL will be an interested observer to progress on this.
The Airport has an extensive surface water drainage system. A network of open lined and
unlined drains provide for the bulk of stormwater drainage at the site. Sinclair Creek collects
a substantial part of this drained water.
Most of the operations and activities at The Airport are connected into the drainage system
and therefore risk introducing polluting substances into it. In particular, hydrocarbons,
solvents and/or detergents are stored or used at a variety of locations. With increased
development of the airport site as a result of the Master Plan proposals, it is likely that the
risk of stormwater pollution may increase.
HIAPL established perimeter groundwater monitoring bores in 1999, establishing that
standing groundwater level at the site is 2 metres in depth. Groundwater use within the
Page 89
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
airport region is dominated by shallow extraction systems for a range of purposes such as
irrigation of surrounding golf courses. Groundwater at the site is vulnerable to contamination
due to the permeable sandy nature of the soils present in most areas of the site. HIAPL’s
groundwater monitoring indicates nutrients in excess of the Airports (Environment
Protection) Regulations 1997 limits for fresh and marine waters, though not at levels
requiring intervention. Metals have consistently been within acceptable levels for fresh and
marine waters. Only zinc has on occasion been slightly elevated for fresh waters,
associated with salinity.
HIAPL recognises its responsibilities under State and Commonwealth legislation to take
‘reasonable and practical measures to prevent, or if not reasonable and practical to prevent,
to minimise pollution’ to ensure that the effects of its activities do not diminish the quality of
Sinclair Creek and downstream waterways. As such, various measures are in place at the
airport to manage the potential impacts of airport operations to surface water and
groundwater. These measures will continue during the Master Plan period, with
modifications and updates where required and with the aim of continual improvement in
water quality and compliance with the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997.
The draft Airport EMS contains Site Management Procedures with specific measures for
water quality. This includes procedures for the storage and handling of contaminating
substances, and stormwater runoff and control.
HIAPL continues to monitor surface water quality in accordance with the monitoring
locations and scope originally agreed with the Airport Environment Officer and Clarence City
Council and amended from time to time with the agreement of the Airport Environment
Officer as circumstances and required outcomes warrant. This includes quarterly monitoring
(when flowing) of the discharge to Barilla Bay to ensure potential adverse impacts offsite are
detected early and management measures implemented. Annual groundwater monitoring is
also undertaken. These monitoring programs enable HIAPL to assess the changes to water
quality at the airport over time, and implement corrective measures where required.
Runway stormwater and wash down bays associated with land based commercial
operations are regularly under review to ensure adequate wastewater pre treatment is
implemented to minimise potential contamination of stormwater. HIAPL intends to construct
a new washdown bay at the site early in the 2009/10 financial year.
Where possible, wastewater containing chemicals are directed to sewer or interception
devices are included at the site. HIAPL is pursuing continuous improvement to achieve
these outcomes in the few situations where these actions have not yet been possible.
Water sensitive urban design practices are implemented at the airport for new
developments and included in the Land Use Precincts Guidelines to improve the quality and
reduce the quantity of stormwater runoff from the site. This includes the use of swale drains,
gross pollutant traps and rainwater harvesting where feasible at the site.
Construction projects at the airport are required to have an approved CEMP in place
detailing the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be undertaken to ensure that
only clean water is discharged to stormwater.
Various measures are in place to prevent contamination of surface and groundwater from
hazardous substances, as outlined in Section 12.3.5.
12.3.4 Natural Resources and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The use of natural resources at the Airport includes water, electricity, fossil fuels and
building/construction materials. Water use at the Airport includes potable supply to tenants
and operations at the airport, as well as landscaping, and is supplied from Hobart Water
Corporation. Electricity used at the site is from the state grid, which draws its power
Page 90
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
primarily from hydro-electric schemes and is therefore a renewable energy source with
considerably lower greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel powered energy supply
plants.
Fossil fuel use at the Airport is modest and includes the use of diesel powered generators
as an auxiliary supply for essential aviation services and other requirements for machinery
and vehicles at the site.
Building and construction materials are used at the airport for new construction projects and
maintenance works.
As the Airport grows during the period of the Master Plan, it can be expected that the use of
natural resources will increase, and HIAPL recognises the need to improve tenant
awareness regarding the use of natural resources and to investigate and encourage
resource efficiency.
Specific studies and monitoring of the use of natural resources or generation of greenhouse
gases at the airport have not been carried out to date, however HIAPL will investigate
opportunities to minimise or reduce the use of natural resources when specific development
or operational projects eventuate. This is evidenced in the Land Use Precincts Guidelines
that are in place to guide the future development of the airport precincts. The guidelines
encourage tenants and developers to consider rainwater harvesting and water reuse and
the design of new buildings to optimise natural lighting and improve energy performance.
Over the period of this Master Plan, HIAPL intends to move towards more sustainable use
of resources at the site and to encourage improvements from airport tenants and
developers, through the implementation of a sustainability strategy. This may include the
following initiatives:

Continued annual environmental awareness training for HIAPL employees and
tenants at the site, which includes consideration to minimise the use of natural
resources;

Continued Annual Environmental Audits of tenant and HIAPL facilities to identify
where management measures can be improved;

The commencement of monitoring and recording at the site for water, electricity and
fossil fuel use so that the airport’s impact in this regard can be determined and
management measures selected accordingly;

Investigate opportunities to reduce the use of fossil fuels, through consideration of
alternative fuels and low emission vehicles/machinery at the site and set
performance targets in the long term;

Further development of the sustainability guidelines for contractors and tenants to
be included in the Land Use Precincts Guidelines – for initiatives such as rainwater
harvesting, material supply and re-use and energy performance of new buildings;

Include measurable sustainability targets in contractual arrangements with tenants
and developers; and

Participate in study or assessments of regional energy use, initiated by
governments or other bodies with relevant formal responsibilities.
12.3.5 Waste and Hazardous Substances
The types of waste generated at the airport include hazardous and non hazardous
substances. Hazardous materials that are produced, stored or handled at the airport site
have the potential to become hazardous waste or cause contamination of soil, water or air
at the airport site. Examples of these substances include fuels, oils, lubricants, solvents,
Page 91
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
detergents, removed asbestos, fire-extinguishing chemicals, batteries, herbicides and
pesticides. Non-hazardous waste includes general waste from HIAPL and tenant facilities,
office waste, building construction and demolition materials, and grounds management
waste.
There are two waste sites at the Airport that were previously used for municipal and airport
waste. Both are listed as potentially contaminated in HIAPL’s Register of Contaminated
Sites, however groundwater at the sites has not been found to be contaminated. The
grounds maintenance building at the north end of the airport is also listed as potentially
contaminated due to its use for storage and handling of contaminating substances such as
pesticides, herbicides, paint and thinners. Contamination has also previously been identified
at the fire training area on the airport site.
A number of buildings at the airport site are known to contain/have contained asbestos
sheeting, which when cracked or otherwise degraded, represents a potential source of
airborne asbestos fibre.
If not managed appropriately, environmental issues such as contamination of groundwater
or soil may arise from waste generation and disposal and from the storage and handling of
hazardous substances during the construction and operation of new developments
associated with the Master Plan.
There are a range of measures undertaken at the Airport for the management of waste and
hazardous substances. This includes a waste management procedure as part of the Airport
EMS, and waste requirements for tenants and contractors are specified in the Precinct
Development Guidelines. This includes the requirement that all refuse from construction,
including soil, waste materials, and food scraps, be removed from the construction site and
the Airport at regular intervals during, and on completion of construction works. Waste is
not to be burnt on the Airport without HIAPL’s approval. There is a requirement for CEMPs
to be in place for construction projects at the Airport and these would contain a waste
management component. Recycling is also an important part of minimising environmental
and waste impacts and HIAPL is committed to recycling as well as, where practicable,
efficiency and cost effectiveness initiatives that minimise the use of resources.
In some circumstances HIAPL may approve the dumping of clean fill in alternative locations
on the Airport. The cleanliness of fill needs to be assessed in accordance with Schedule 3 of
the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997, the National Environmental Health
Forum (NEHF), or other relevant guidelines.
Given that certain buildings or sites on the Airport may contain asbestos, or contaminated
areas, HIAPL maintains a Register of Contaminated Sites and an Asbestos Management
Procedure is included in the draft Airport EMS. HIAPL also maintains a Dangerous Goods
Register. Development of sites listed on the Register of Contaminated Sites would require a
contamination assessment prior to ground disturbance works to prevent the contamination
of soil or groundwater at site.
Measures to prevent spills of hazardous substances at the Airport include the bunding of
hazardous substance storage areas such at the grounds maintenance building. ASA has
advised that the fire training ground is currently contaminated by previous fire and rescue
activities, and is subject to ongoing monitoring. ASA has introduced and put in place
measures to prevent future contamination.
In the event that a fuel or other hazardous substance spill occurs at the Airport (as has
occurred infrequently in the past), follow up testing of surface and groundwater would be
undertaken to assess the extent of the impact and enable remediation. Spill cleanup
equipment is available at the airport to contain and manage the impacts from spills that may
occur on the site.
Page 92
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
HIAPL requires all hazardous waste generated at the Airport to be disposed of through a
registered/licensed operator and that the Airport Environment Officer be advised of the
material and disposal arrangements before works or disposal commences.
With these management measures and others specified in the AES and the draft Airport
EMS, it is expected that issues associated with waste disposal and hazardous substances
can be appropriately managed over the Master Plan period.
12.3.6 Air and Soil Quality
The air quality of the airport and surrounds is associated with a rural setting and is mostly
affected by climatic influence and regional forestry burning. Localised sources of emissions
at the airport include the use of vehicles and machinery on the site, ground running aircraft,
diesel generators and activities at the fire training area. These are not considered to have a
significant influence on local or regional air quality.
Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) have largely been phased out, however instances of
use at the airport include chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerators and air conditioners, halonbased fire extinguishers and de-icing chemicals. An Ozone Depleting Substances register is
maintained by HIAPL.
No significant adverse impacts to air quality are expected from future Airport operations,
including the growth outlined in this Master Plan.
The soil profile of areas in the northern parts of the airport site is loamy sands to sandy clay
loams in the surface horizon with deep sandy clay subsoils. Coastal sand deposits exist in
the southern part of the airport. There is the potential that Airport operations and
developments may impact upon soil, especially at sensitive sites at which hazardous
substances are located.
The draft Airport EMS includes a site management procedure for air quality. Whilst air
quality studies have not been conducted at the Airport, HIAPL has committed in the AES to
participate in study or assessments of regional air shed quality, initiated by governments or
other bodies with relevant formal responsibilities.
Vegetation burn-offs are likely to be required at the airport site for waste control or for
grounds management. Permits will be obtained for any burnoffs and the AEO will be
advised in advance of significant burnoffs that may be required, with conditions or
recommendations implemented as necessary.
With reference to its ozone depleting substances register, HIAPL is working to complete the
gradual phase-out of CFCs and CFC-based refrigerators and air conditioners at the Airport.
Management measures to prevent soil or groundwater contamination from hazardous
substance or spills from existing or new developments on the airport site are described in
Section 12.3.5. HIAPL’s groundwater monitoring program contributes to the understanding
of soil quality or contamination at the site. HIAPL also requires tenants to provide effective
physical measures to prevent, control or reduce impacts from their operations on soil
quality.
The recent site assessment report of the Fire Station by GHD dated September 2008
identified the contaminant TPH. There has not been PFOS/PFOA testing at the Fire
Station, though recent testing as part of the remediation of the TPH contamination has
identified potential contamination from AFFF (fire fighting foam). Accordingly the report has
recommended further site investigation works to identify the extent of contamination and
rehabilitation works.
Page 93
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
12.3.7 Ground-based noise
The Airport site is bounded by water at its two operational ends and has a relatively low
concentration of industrial and residential development nearby. The nearest urban
residential areas are located approximately one kilometre from the southern boundary of the
site at Seven Mile Beach and approximately three kilometres to the north at Midway Point.
The Acton rural residential area is approximately three kilometres to the southwest.
The main sources of noise associated with airport operations include noise from airborne
aircraft movements, ground-based aircraft operations, and freight transport and other airport
related vehicular movements at the site. In-flight aircraft noise is expected to increase during
the period of this Master Plan. The assessment of the issues that might reasonably be
expected to be associated with such growth and HIAPL’s plans for dealing with in-flight
noise are outlined in Section 8.
The sources of ground-based noise can also be expected to increase over the period of the
Master Plan as there are increased aircraft and vehicular movements at the airport. In
general the most significant source of noise from ground-based aircraft operations is related
to heavy maintenance of jet aircraft. This type of maintenance is not carried out at the
Airport, and there is minimal line maintenance carried out which has a lesser noise impact.
Light aircraft maintenance at the airport is minimal and is not expected to introduce any
noise impact through ground running. There are no plans to include heavy jet maintenance
facilities at the airport, so any increases in ground-based noise would be as a result of
increased aircraft and vehicular movements over the Master Plan period. Aircraft
movements are projected to increase as described in Section 6 Air Traffic Forecasts, with
vehicle movements described in Section 13 Landside Transport.
Freight handling by a range of vehicles occurs on the Airport’s road system and via arterial
roads to and from the airport. Other sources of noise at the site include car rental
operations, fire services and light industrial activities.
The current separation between the airport and residential areas is to be maintained and is
currently achieved through the Airport Buffer specified in the Clarence City Council Planning
Scheme 2007, as presented in Section 8. This means that ground-based noise is unlikely to
become an issue to surrounding land uses.
HIAPL has procedures in place for ground running of aircraft, aimed at minimising the
potential for noise to create a nuisance to other site personnel or airport users. This includes
a maximum time for engine running on the terminal and freight aprons and a limitation to
daytime activity.
Given the minimal nature of aircraft maintenance activities at the airport and the distances to
the nearest residential areas, no additional noise mitigation measures for ground-based
noise are expected to be required as a result of the proposals in this Master Plan.
Freight traffic entering the airport site makes use of major arterial roads already handling
significant traffic from other sources, and is not a major source of noise generation. There
are no current or future plans for noise mitigation measures for freight traffic or other onground site activities such as rental cars; however HIAPL has a Noise Site Management
Procedure in place as part of the draft Airport EMS.
Assessment of noise impact from airport operations will continue to be undertaken by
suitably trained personnel as required in response to complaints and/or identification of
noise problems. This is included as a commitment in the 2005 AES.
HIAPL will work with State and Local Government to manage any noise issues related to
increase aircraft or vehicle movements, as these assist and facilitate the delivery of
economic benefits at the airport.
Page 94
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
12.3.8 Visual Amenity
The site has limited vantage points due to the flat topography of the region. The airport is
visible from Mount Rumney, but has limited visibility from the Acton Corridor and the
Tasman Highway.
Within the Airport the Holyman Avenue corridor presents a visual effect of some positive
impact due to stands of mature vegetation that line the road.
It is unlikely that the existing development is adversely impacting on the visual amenity of
the region, due to the flat topography, limited vantage points for viewing the site and
typically Iow structures.
Over time there will be significant further development in line with the operational and
commercial objectives described in this Master Plan. The impact on visual amenity will be a
consideration in how this development takes place.
Although no formal landscape plan currently exists for the site, the Airport Environment
Strategy does consider the management of existing vegetation, and any new developments
will consider the visual amenity of the region.
HIAPL Management personnel consider visual amenity on a case by case basis for each
new project at the site.
The Land Use Precincts Guidelines also include consideration of visual amenity at the site,
including that planning objectives for the different precincts must address visual and
character impacts.
At this stage, it is envisaged that the Fire Training Ground remain in its current location to
the south-east of Runway 12/30. The continued location of this facility in this area will need
to be considered in light of potential development in Precinct 7 and the impact, if any, of
potential smoke nuisance and health issues related to the fire training.
Page 95
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
13
Landside Transport
13.1
Introduction
HIAPL recognises that maintaining a high level of accessibility to the Airport terminal and
surrounding lands is fundamental to ensuring the efficient and effective operation of the
airport and associated development. The support of the State in this objective is also
important.
The following section outlines a Landside Transport Strategy to achieve this aim.
13.2
Objectives of the Landside Transport Strategy
The Landside Transport Strategy is a key component of the overall Master Plan that
endeavours to:

Assess and provide for the future needs of civil aviation and other users of airport;
services and facilities;

Align with land use and related development strategies, including aviation related
requirements, land transport access and zoning for business and industry development;
and

“Future proof” transport corridors and retain flexibility to account for staged development
and delivery of the on-airport transport network that will be influenced by market
conditions.
The Landside Transport Strategy and its inputs to the Master Plan are required to guide all
aspects of the planning and design of ground transportation requirements providing access
to, and movement within the Airport.
13.3
Landside Transport Trends and Influences
The development of the Landside Transport Strategy for this Master Plan considers the
following key inputs:

Existing transport demand and operations;

Existing and forecast airline passenger demands;

Existing and forecast land use development strategies;

Existing and forecast landside transport mode share; and

Future Landside Transport Strategy.
Mode share surveys, summarised below in Table 7, indicate private vehicles and taxis as
the primary mode for terminal-related traffic.
Private Vehicle
71%
Taxi
18%
Rental Car
6%
Bus/Coach
4%
Limousine
1%
Cycle
<0.01%
Source: Parking Consultants International Car Park Strategy Report
Table 7
2008 Daily Mode Share Estimates
Page 96
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 42
Estimated Average Daily Traffic on the Road Network
Page 97
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 42 represents the estimated average daily traffic on the road network. Other modes
of transport currently providing access to the airport include public transport, bus services,
taxis limousine, cycle and pedestrian. The vehicle peak represents approximately 8% of the
daily flows and generally falls around the middle of the day.
13.3.1 The Surrounding Area and On-Airport Existing Road Network
The road network surrounding and within the Hobart Airport is generally provides the
primary access to the Airport. Hobart International Airport, as a key regional hub, attracts
transport demands from Hobart and across Tasmania. The primary access to Airport Land
is Holyman Avenue accessed via the Tasman Highway
Figure 42 illustrates the key road network elements surrounding and within the Airport and
following sections describe the key elements of the road network.
13.3.1.1 Surrounding Area
Hobart Airport is connected and surrounded by a number of external road corridors
including:

Tasman Highway – a highway standard road under State jurisdiction and forms the
main route between Hobart and Launceston. This road provides the primary access to
the Hobart Airport for terminal-related traffic. The cross section of the road varies with a
four lane median divided near Hobart reducing to a two lane median divided road prior
to the main Hobart Airport access roundabout.

Kennedy Drive – a two lane, undivided suburban route under Council jurisdiction. This
road provides an alternative route from Richmond Road which feeds the northern towns
including Richmond.

Surf Road – a two lane, unmarked and undivided local road under Council jurisdiction.
This road provides a northern access to Seven Mile Beach and runs along the Hobart
Airport south eastern boundary.

Pittwater Road – a two lane, unmarked and undivided local road under Council
jurisdiction. This road provides access to Surf Road and runs along the Hobart Airport
north eastern boundary.
13.3.1.2 On-Airport
The primary Hobart Airport road network elements that connect to the off-airport network
include:

Holyman Avenue – a two lane, undivided suburban road which provides the only access
route to the terminal and associated facilities.

Loop Road – a two lane, undivided local access road which services the commercial
precinct and is currently trafficked by a low amount of service vehicle traffic
13.3.2 Public Transport
Figure 43 illustrates the current public transport and cycle/pedestrian access routes across
the Airport.
Page 98
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 43
Existing Public Transport and Cycle Network
Page 99
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Historically public transport has not been a high use alternative to the car for those travelling
to and from the airport.
The current bus service operates between Hobart CBD and the airport for every departure.
The shuttle departs outside the terminal after the arrival of every flight transferring
passengers to the city. The primary operator for bus services is Tasmanian Redline
Coaches.
Airline-related traffic to and from Hobart Airport accounts for the majority of all transport
movements. Estimated primarily from airline-based passengers, the mode share accounts
for meeters and greeters, flight crews and traffic from terminal-related activities.
13.4
Forecast Landside Transport Demand
13.4.1 Terminal Related Traffic
Total forecast terminal related traffic is shown in Table 8 and is estimated to grow from
7,900 daily trips to 18,400 trips by 2029.
13.4.2 Development and Terminal Related Traffic
Transitional land uses, developed as part of an ultimate development scenario, were used
as the basis to calculate a range of daily trips to and from the Airport precinct for the 2029
Master Plan horizon. The results are summarised in Table 8 below.
Precinct
2009
2029
1
Under Development
96001
2
Undeveloped
1000-5000
3
Undeveloped
1000-5000
4
Undeveloped
1000-5000
5
Undeveloped
5000-10000
6
Undeveloped
1000-5000
7
Undeveloped
<5000
Phasing indicates minimal development in this
precinct to 2029. Full development could generate
higher volumes based on size of precinct.
8
Undeveloped
5000-10000
Trips out to 2029. Full development could generate
higher volumes based on size of precinct.
9
Undeveloped
1000-5000
7900
18400
Terminal
*Forecasts are subject to changes in the market and configuration of development at the time of construction
1
– Development Estimates from Ratio Consultants “Proposed DFO and Retail Development Traffic Impact” report
Table 8
Potential Daily Trip Generation Forecasts by Precinct*
It is important to note that the intent is that direct development access to and from Holyman
Avenue be restricted in the longer term to ensure priority for terminal users.
13.5
The Landside Transport Strategy
Development on Airport land and terminal growth should account for the timing and delivery
of associated upgrades of on and off-airport infrastructure. Within this context, the following
sections outline the key on-airport elements of the Landside Transport Strategy.
Page 100
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
13.5.1 Road Network
Road access needs to be maintained or reserved to maintain on-airport circulation and
access from the external road network. The key components of implementation program for
development of the Hobart Airport roads are as follows:

Tasman Highway is the primary access road into the terminal. It is currently a four lane
cross section from Hobart and reduces to two lanes prior to the Airport access
roundabout. An upgrade to Tasman Highway and the access roundabout may be
required to provide sufficient capacity for Airport land.

Holyman Avenue is the primary access road from Tasman Highway to the terminal.
Additional lanes/capacity may be required within the Master Plan timeframe to account
for increased terminal activity and future precinct developments. It will be important to
maintain priority for terminal related traffic in the design of the upgrade

Loop Road is a commercial access road which requires to be upgraded to meet
engineering standards if traffic volumes increase from current levels.

Retention of the secondary access point to the airport from the Tasman Highway
connection to Loop Road.

Upgrades could be provided for the face roads at the airport terminal. Two lanes could
be provided with the lane closest to the terminal accommodating taxi pick up and bus
access. The second lane could accommodate private pickup and drop off and taxi drop
off.
Longer term improvements beyond the 2029 Master Plan horizon may include:

Surf Road and Pittwater Road may require capacity upgrade to provide access to
Precincts 6, 7 and 8 subject to the timing of development staging.

Additional roads could be included around the Airport including service roads to provide
access to Airport developments and to provide a link from Holyman Avenue to Surf
Road.
Figure 44 represents the strategic road network plan and access reservation requirements
needed as part of the longer term road network strategy.
Page 101
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Figure 44
Strategic Road Network Plan
Page 102
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
13.5.2 Public Transport
Public transport, in particular bus services, will play a key role in managing growth and
accessibility to the terminal.
There is currently provision for buses and coaches at the front of the terminal Hobart Airport
and there is scope to provide additional parking bays on the terminal face road as demand
warrants.
Further improvements to services to taxis could include the provision of amenity facilities in
their car overflow park.
13.5.3 Cycle and Pedestrian Access
All modes of transport, including cyclists and pedestrians, can be catered for but can only be
effective with reasonable external network connections.
The primary strategy for these transport modes is to provide adequate reservations and
links along Holyman Avenue for cycle paths and pedestrian paths that can provide safe and
direct access to the terminal and surrounding development.
Current demand for cycling with respect to staff, recreational or other users is likely to be
negligible. Nonetheless, further development on Airport land in all precincts will create a
larger workforce increasing the likelihood of cycling being a mode of travel on Airport land.
Inclusion for the provision for cyclists demonstrates HIAPL’s interest in facilitating all surface
transport modes. The form of cyclist facilities can vary and can be as simple as a wider
kerbside lane to safely accommodate on-road cyclists.
13.5.4 Car Parking
There are two general users of parking that will use facilities on Airport Land:

Parking associated with the terminals, including short and long-stay parking for air
passengers, staff parking and the parking for hire cars and other ground transport
operations;

Parking associated with other developments on the airport.
Future parking at the terminal precinct could be supported by additional capacity through
expansion of the at-grade facilities, for modes including rental car operators, coach, taxi and
limousine services. Staff parking could be included in this expansion.
The existing outdoor valet product is being phased out with a premium valet option being
considered, with potential to outsource under licence conditions. A total valet allowance of
19,300m2 or 860 car spaces has been allowed for by 2029.
The terminal parking could be extended in stages as outlined in Table 9 below.
Page 103
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
Stage
Existing
Short Term
(2012)*
Medium Term
(2019)
Long Term
(2029)
Park Use
Proposed Number of Spaces/Area
Public
540 (12150 m²)
Rental
110 (2475 m²)
Staff
150 (3375 m²)
Total
800 (18000 m²)
Public
676 (15210 m²)
Rental
154 (3465 m²)
Staff
150 (3375 m²)
Total
980 (22050 m²)
Public
690 (15525 m²)
Rental
190 (4275 m²)
Staff
150 (3375 m²)
Total
1030 (23175 m²)
Public
1040 (23400 m²)
Rental
290 (6525 m²)
Staff
150 (3375 m²)
Total
1480 (33300 m²)
Source for Short Terms: Parking Consultants International Car Park Strategy Report
Table 9 Proposed Terminal Parking (excluding Valet)
Parking associated with other developments on the airport will be planned and developed to
meet overall airport objectives including:

Visitor, staff and service parking provided on-site;

On-street visitor parking on non-terminal roads where street design can safely
accommodate this option; and
This parking is intended to be accommodated within at-grade facilities during the timeframe
of the Master Plan.
13.6
Monitoring and Updating of the Landside Transport Strategy
The planning undertaken as part of this Master Plan is based on the best available
information at the time of writing. A number of factors may influence the forecasts used as
the basis for this planning, particular approaching the 2029 planning horizon. To ensure any
changes to assumptions used in the Master Plan can be accommodated in future planning,
ongoing monitoring of the transport system will be required.
Monitoring should include the following as a minimum:

Review of the Landside Transport Strategy with significant changes in market conditions
and other key regional influences;

Collection of the relevant travel related data on an annual basis;

Updating of planning to better support overall Airport objectives.
Page 104
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
14
Planning
14.1
Phasing of Development
HIAPL is committed to the aeronautical and commercial development of land at the Airport
in a planned and sensibly managed manner, in accordance with the Development
Guidelines prepared for each of the precincts, and the Airport Environment Strategy. When
appropriate, HIAPL will facilitate the establishment and growth of other businesses on the
Airport, by providing land, support and assistance in a manner that maximises the
opportunity for those businesses to operate in a sustainable and profitable manner.
The timing of infrastructure development is be subject to demand which in turn is driven by
actual traffic (passenger and aircraft) growth and/or commercial imperatives depending on
the nature of the demand. HIAPL will actively pursue growth opportunities although these
are subject to a range of fluctuating market and external conditions. Close monitoring of
actual growth is therefore necessary to assess current trends and the potential need to
adjust implementation plans and programs.
The following sections represent development expectations, in a series of stages, based on
the forecasting in Section 6. The staged development endeavours to provide the airport
infrastructure in a timeframe consistent with demand and proposed operations, and to suit
available funding.
During the initial planning period, it is anticipated that development of land at Hobart Airport
will primarily occur on the western side of the runway, from the Tasman Highway to Surf
Road. When appropriate, development will be staged to allow for the orderly provision of
new infrastructure to meet demand for services in a financially and environmentally
responsible manner.
The indicative implementation program for development of the Hobart Airport property is as
follows.
14.2
Initial planning period to 2014

Runway 12/30 will need to be rejuvenated potentially through the use of profiling
and surface enrichment spray as well as intensive crack sealing. It is envisaged that
this temporary treatment could be followed by a full overlay during this period, or
between 2015 and 2020.

Development of a consolidated freight area to the north of the terminal in the vicinity
of the Toll Air Express facility. The apron could comprise three aircraft parking
stands, for two narrow-body Code C and 1 widebody Code D aircraft1.

In the domestic terminal, an additional baggage reclaim facility may be provided at
the south end of the terminal, with redevelopment of the area where the existing
Qantas/Jetstar bag belt is located to provide the required space.

With additional baggage reclaim capacity, the International terminal area can be
reconfigured and retrofitted to accommodate commencement of regular
international passenger services. Given the lead time associated with preparing an
international facility to accommodate regular passenger operations, particularly in
terms of security, customs and border protection, and quarantine services, any refit
of the international terminal would need to occur at least 6 to 12 months prior to

In addition to terminal reconfiguration, the passenger apron may require overlay and
strengthening to the requisite PCN load carrying capacity to accommodate larger
Code E aircraft. In addition, given the proposed finger pier to provide additional
capacity in the future, Taxiway Foxtrot will need to be realigned to provide sufficient
clearance for Code E taxiway to object around the potential pier and new stand
Page 105
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL
arrangement. These works or phases of these works could occur in the later 20152029 planning period.

In terms of terminal-based car parking, additional spaces will need to be provided to
accommodate forecast demand, potentially meaning demolition of buildings
including the current HIAPL offices and a move of HIAPL offices to the former Alpha
Flight Services catering building.

Non-aeronautical development is likely to be centred on existing developments in
Precinct 2, including the new hotel and fuel station, and momentum generated by
the planned DFO and bulky goods development in Precinct 1. Given its prime
location along the western side of Holyman Avenue, opposite Precinct 1, Precinct 4
is expected to be well developed for Commercial use in the short-term. Towards the
end of the initial planning period, commercial development in Precincts 3 and 5
including office park-type uses is envisaged, though the exact nature and scale of
development will be determined by the market at the time.

The road network may need to be augmented to align with aviation related growth,
land use and related development strategies, and zoning for business and industry
development.

Upgrading of Airport lighting systems including mandatory upgrading, commencing
with the approaching lighting in the sea.

Hangar and other general aviation facilities in support of the Australian Antarctic
Division’s Antarctic Air Link, and other Antarctic nations.

Relocation of Fire Station.

New AaE facility, subject to AaE decision and reaching suitable commercial terms.

Alpha Building conversion for Quarantine Tasmania, subject to Quarantine
Tasmania decision, and for other use.

Other aviation support facilities.
14.3
Balance of the forecast planning period 2015-2029

Development of the finger pier from the terminal and associated reconfiguration and
overlay of the central and southern portions of the existing passenger apron to
achieve the forecast demand of 8 narrow-body Code C stands and 1 wide-body
Code E stand.

Upgraded and expanded General Aviation apron, including new pavement areas
and hangarage to the south of the terminal, as well as a revised landside / airside
boundary to the south and east of the existing Air BP facility.

In the longer term, the construction of a parallel taxiway along Runway 12/30 to the
runway ends, to provide additional runway and airfield capacity. The provision of
this type of infrastructure is highly dependent on commercial discussions with
airlines.

The proposed development of the Precincts is likely to continue from 2015 to 2029.
With initial focus on development of land in proximity to Precincts 1 to 5, the second
phase of development is focused on key access routes and areas of highest
exposure including the Tasman Highway, Holyman Avenue and around the
Terminal Precinct.

Long term development of more remote precincts to the south of the airport is
envisaged in the last five years of the forecast planning period, requiring a public
access road from Holyman Avenue to Surf Road.
Page 106
Final
1 July 2010
HIAPL

14.4
Road improvements and capacity enhancements, including an upgrade to Tasman
Highway and the access roundabout to the Airport, duplication along Holyman
Avenue and an upgrade of Loop Road to meet appropriate engineering standards.
Beyond the forecast planning period – from 2029 onwards

Beyond the forecast planning period, infrastructure extensions might include
extending the runway itself, or providing short general aviation runway development
with associated taxiways. Neither of these developments is intended as part of the
Master Plan and as such these have only been described as options for a future
time beyond 2029.

Further terminal expansion as required.

Continued aeronautical development in Precinct 9 Freight and the Terminal
Precinct.

Depending on decisions about Cambridge, a short smaller aircraft runway, either
parallel or cross-wind.

Depending on decisions about Cambridge, potential expansion of the GA facilities in
Precinct 8.

Connection of the public road system from Holyman Avenue through to Surf Road.

Continuing business and commercial consolidation and development.

Further road system redevelopment.
Page 107
Final
1 July 2010
Appendix A
0DVWHU3ODQ/D\RXW
Appendix B
0LQXWHVIURP6WDNHKROGHU
&RQVXOWDWLRQ:RUNVKRSV
Notes of Meeting
Page 1 of 4
Job title
Hobart Master Plan Development
Job number
206117
Meeting name & number
Location
Purpose of meeting
Preliminary Aeronautical Planning Stakeholder
Workshop
File reference
Hobart International Airport Limited Boardroom Time & date
9.30
18 March 2009
•
•
Present the draft aeronautical planning for the development of the Hobart
Airport Master Plan 2009
Discuss the implications and assumptions
Present
Air Services Australia - John Glass
Air Services Australia - Phil McGowan
Arup - Carol Battle
Arup - Jim Peacock
Australian Customs - Maree Fasoli
Australian Quarantine - Rhonda Hall
Clarence City Council - Dan Ford
Government - Nic Pearl
Federal Police - Hank Timmerman
Hobart International Airport Pty Limited - Brett Reiss
Hobart International Airport Pty Limited - John Langford
RotorLift - Heather Guidotti
Sorell Council - Bill Hyndes
State Department of Environment, Heritage and the Arts - Bill Wilson
State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources - Glen Tambling
TasAir - Ralph Schwertener
Virgin - Lisa Ross
Apologies
QANTAS – John Bradford
State Department of Justice – Peter Fischer
State Department of Economic Development and Tourism – Rowan Sproule
State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources – Matt Davis
State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources – Chris Warr
State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources – David Spence
State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources – Phil Cooke
Arup – Bruce Tanner
Circulation
In addition to those listed above:
Emma Riley – Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority
State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources – Peter Todd
Arup – Cathy Crawley
Prepared by
Carol Battle
Date of circulation
18 March 2009
\\MELFP101\PROJECTS$\206117-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-0800_STAKEHOLDER_CONSULTATION\MINUTES\HOBART_AREONAUTICAL_MINUTES_200309.DOC
©Arup F0.5
Rev 12, 9 August 2007
Notes of Meeting
Page 2 of 4
Job title
Job number
Date of Meeting
206117
18 March 2009
1.
•
•
•
2.
•
3.
•
•
4.
5.
•
•
•
•
Welcome and background (John Langford)
Attendees welcomed and thanked for their time and participation.
Background to the Masterplanning process outlined. Emphasis placed on HIAPL’s willingness to
engage with stakeholders through Arup, the consultant developing the Master Plan and facilitating the
stakeholder process.
Context of Hobart Airport outlined, with respect to the simplicity of the requirements owing to location
and Council boundaries.
Introductions (All)
Attendees introduced organisations and interests.
Master planning background (Jim Peacock)
Master Plan development process outlined.
Requirements stipulated within the Airports Act (1996) reviewed.
Stakeholder engagement process (Carol Battle)
Objectives for the consultation process reviewed and objectives for the session outlined.
Overview of consultation requirements as outlined in the Airports Act (1996)
Range of organisations engaged outlined. Presence of Local, State and Federal government
representatives noted.
Channels for providing inputs outlined.
6.
Preliminary aeronautical planning
6.1
Forecasting (Jim Peacock)
6.1.1
Key points
•
Demand modelling based on medium-range forecast growth of 4.1 per cent to 2029, which is based on
weighted-average projections from other airport Master Plans – airports with which Hobart has
connections.
•
Projections are based on both passenger and aircraft movements. The modelling further includes
consideration of load factors, aircraft size and type, seat configurations.
International flights are expected to come primarily from New Zealand and potentially South-East Asia
(potential for an Air Asia X type operation) are modelled to represent ~10 per cent of market share by
2029 based on anticipated demand.
It is not anticipated that there will be a requirement to extend operating hours to accommodate increased
traffic, as indicated by schedules - operating hours 06:00 – 24:00.
Forecasting in the current climate is extremely challenging. Prudent to benchmark against other airports’
growth and also the methodology has anticipated a medium growth scenario.
6.1.2
•
•
•
6.2
•
•
•
•
Considerations raised
Apron planning (Jim Peacock)
6.2.1
Key points
Range of options demonstrated and rationale for preliminary design articulated.
Requirements for flexibility for accommodating for increased passenger numbers, growth of
international operations and operational requirements.
Options 4 and 5 - power-in/ push-back model most efficiency and represents the preferred direction of
Master Plan.
Benefits of aerobridges discussed. This will be described in the Master Plan – not necessarily a
requirement but an opportunity generated by power-in/pushback.
6.2.2
©Arup F0.5
Notes of Meeting
Page 3 of 4
Job title
Job number
Date of Meeting
206117
18 March 2009
•
•
•
6.3
•
•
•
•
6.4
Potential of a second floor to be considered at 4 million passenger movements. This would provide
flexibility in addressing terminal footprint constraints.
Noted that Options 1, 2 and 3 make parallel taxiway very difficult, representing a constraint design..
These Options are not preferred and have been discounted for the reasons explained in the presentation
slides (land take, impact on freight area, poor passenger experience)
Noted that Gold Coast is good benchmark for an Australian airport operating at 4 million annual pax
with a full parallel taxiway.
Runway length methodology
6.3.1
Key points (Jim Peacock)
The modelling indicates that there is no requirement to extend the runway.
An opportunity exists to extend the runway to 2530m before constraints of transient obstacles on the
road.
6.3.2
Impact of runway approach on vehicle traffic management methods at other airports discussed. Noted
that the Draft Master Plan will not incorporate modelling for vehicle traffic management options as the
modelling indicates no requirement to extend the runway.
HIAPL requested to include mention of the runway length analysis in the Draft Master Plan, and to
include narrative that states that had the modelling indicates an opportunity to extend the runway if
required at some point in the future.
Terminal concepts (Jim Peacock)
6.4.1
Key points
•
The potential terminal concepts proposed by Arup were presented. Also, some generic conceptual
sketches by architect Hassells.
•
•
The expansion through the baggage area would require an additional belt.
Arup to review requirement to expand baggage room to meet increased demand
6.4.2
6.5
Parking plans (John Langford)
6.5.1
Key points
•
•
PCI engaged to undertake airport parking plans.
PCI have worked independently of the forecasting exercise. Arup to review plans in-line with the Master
Plan and throughput of 4.2 million annual pax by 2029. Arup to then propose additional measures to
meet demand, if appropriate.
•
Response in the parking plan to address parking capacity constraints, and issues related to drop-offs and
stand-by vehicles on Holyman Avenue.
Consideration for staff parking to be factored into review of Parking Plan.
Potential issue with congestion resulting from circling noted.
•
•
6.6
•
•
•
•
6.5.2
Facilitated discussion
6.6.1
GA apron planning yet to be completed by Arup but will be included in the Master Plan.
Parallel taxiway would provide significant capacity benefit – timing based on a commercial discussion
with airlines. Full parallel taxiway will be shown in the Master Plan.
General Aviation projections do not indicate a requirement for an additional runway. If market
conditions change and Cambridge closes, HIAPL could accommodate most if not all of the demand on
the current runway. If an additional runway were to be required, this would need to be funded either by
the users or State.
HIAPL offices to move, which will change the footprint of security controlled areas. Gate 1 continue to
©Arup F0.5
Notes of Meeting
Page 4 of 4
Job title
Job number
Date of Meeting
206117
18 March 2009
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
be main access to airside. Gate 1 could move closer to new HIAPL office (in former flight kitchen to
north of terminal). Potential for a second access point to airside south of fire station.
There may be a potential requirement to deal with an increase in smaller aircraft. The Master Plan
allows for smaller aircraft to use Code C stands. This could also potentially be addressed through a
satellite lounge. Narrative in Master Plan to reflect this.
There are no plans to move the tower site. Site survey study completed. Tower in best location. If a new
tower required, would be situated adjacent to existing tower. ASA to provide HIAPL and Arup with
report to be considered and discussed in the Master Plan.
AirServices Australia has expansion plans for the Fire station, which may require relocation. An outline
of planning requirements to be requested from Loretta Petroff for Master Plan design consideration.
Redevelopment of freight area to consider line of site requirements from the tower.
Wastewater treatment works located on Airport Site and leased to Clarence City Council will be
included in the Master Plan.
Customs current capacity caters for Australian Antarctic Division and Itinerant international flights.
Request that the Master Plan note that phasing and lead-times are critical to meet the infrastructure and
operational requirements to service an increase in international traffic.
Master Plans represent the strategic and long-term objectives of the Airport and that OTS, Airservices
Australia and CASA all have the formal opportunity to review the plan before it is presented to the
Minister.
Current Master Plan does not include activities at the heliport. The location of Rotor Life will be shown
in the Master Plan.
The Federal Department of Infrastructure’s position on public safety zones is being articulated in a
discussion paper. It is expected that this will not affect the master planning process due to timing. Less
of an issue at Hobart owing bodies of water at either end of runway.
Noted that the Federal Infrastructure Minister places emphasis on integration into State and Local
planning processes. Noted the range of representatives from all levels of government present.
Timing for new freight area Could be within next 12 months. Master Plan will show the northern freight
area.
©Arup F0.5
Minutes of Meeting
Page 1 of 3
Job title
Hobart Airport Masterplan
Job number
206117
Noise modelling workshop
File reference
Location
Hobart Airport Board Room
Time & date
9.30
Purpose of meeting
•
•
19 March 2009
Present the draft noise modelling for the development of the Hobart Airport
Master Plan 2009
Discuss the implications and assumptions
Present
Air Services Australia - John Glass
Air Services Australia - Phil McGowan
Arup - Bruce Tanner
Arup – Carol Battle
Arup - Jim Peacock
Arup – Kym Burgemeister
Clarence City Council - Dan Ford
Government - Nic Pearl
Hobart International Airport Pty Limited - Brett Reiss
Hobart International Airport Pty Limited - John Langford
RotorLift - Heather Guidotti
Sorell Council – John Molnar
Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority - Damian Mackey
State Department of Environment, Heritage and the Arts - Bill Wilson
TasAir - Ralph Schwertener
Apologies
State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources – Matt Davis
State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources – Peter Todd
State Department of Justice – Peter Fischer
Circulation
In addition to those present hose present
Arup – Cathy Crawley
Prepared by
Carol Battle
Date of circulation
19 March 2009
J:\206117-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-0800_STAKEHOLDER_CONSULTATION\MINUTES\HOBART_NOISE_MINUTES_200309.DOC
©Arup F0.5
Minutes of Meeting
Page 2 of 3
Job title
Job number
Date of Meeting
206117
19 March 2009
1.
•
•
•
2.
•
3.
•
•
4.
•
•
•
•
•
Background to the Masterplanning process outlined. Emphasis placed on HIAPL’s willingness to
engage with stakeholders through Arup – the consultant developing the Master Plan and facilitating the
stakeholder process.
Context of Hobart Airport outlined, with respect to the simplicity of the requirements due to proximity to
the sea (water at either end of runway) and single Council boundary.
Introductions (All)
Attendees introduced organisations and interests.
Master Plan development process outlined.
Requirements stipulated within the Airports Act (1996) reviewed.
Objectives for the consultation process reviewed and objectives for the session outlined.
Range of organisations engaged outlined. Presence of Local, State and Federal government
representatives noted.
Approvals process for Master Plan discussed.
5.
Preliminary noise modelling
5.1
Noise forecasting background (Kym Burgemeister)
5.1.1
Key points
•
•
Background on Australian Noise Evaluation Forecasting (ANEF) history, metrics and model inputs.
Outline of Australian Standard (AS2021) regarding ANEF zones and building site acceptability.
•
•
Application of the AS2021 within the Special Use Airport Zone discussed.
Background on ANEF needs to be included in Master Plan so public can understand the contours.
5.2
•
•
•
•
5.1.2
Demand modelling(Jim Peacock)
5.2.1
Key points
Feasible capacity modelling outlined, as consistent with the 2004 Master Plan.
Demand modelling based on medium-range scenario growth of 4.1 per cent to 2038 - based on weightedaverage projections from other airport Master Plans. 2038 = 6 million annual passengers – similar to
Adelaide now.
Summary of input assumptions, including aircraft mix (freight, passenger jets and General Aviation
(GA)), load factors and seating capacities. While total feasible capacity unchanged from 2004 Master
Plan, anticipated greater volume of passenger jet activity (43,000 movements) and lower number of GA,
military and itinerant movements (94,000 movements). Still substantially higher GA, military etc than
current 5,000 movements.
Projected growth, stress-tested with Gross State Product and Tourism Australia projections.
5.2.2
No considerations regarding the demand modelling raised.
5.3
Noise modelling assumptions (Kym Burgemeister)
©Arup F0.5
Minutes of Meeting
Page 3 of 3
Job title
Job number
Date of Meeting
206117
19 March 2009
5.3.1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Key points
Modelling utilising latest INM software and assumes centre of flight tracks and no procedural changes to
current operations.
Review of the arrivals, departures, circuit and helicopter flight tracks reviewed. Noted that AirServices
Australia is providing input into the flight track assumptions.
5.3.2
Potential for deviations from illustrated flight paths discussed. Limitations of tracking GA aircraft , when
operating on Visual Flight Rules (VFR) discussed.
Changes between the 2004 ANEF modelling and 2009 ANEF initial modelling discussed. Changes
attributed primarily to correct modelling of helicopters and fixing these to specific flight paths in the
model.
Further discussion with GA operators and Air Services Australia required in order to establish a realistic
representation of GA and helicopter flight tracks. It is expected this will reduce the variation between the
2004 and initial 2009 ANEF modelling.
Noted that despite Hobart Airport’s historical lack of noise complaints, the immateriality of changes
between the 2004 and 2009 modelling and no planned procedural changes, communications with the
community regarding noise forecasting needs to be explained in a considered manner.
Noise standards for industrial operations and variation in noise during the night discussed. Nigh-time
penalty is factored into the ANEF.
Representation of noise in the 2004 Master Plan noted to be difficult to interpret technically.
Consideration required to make information accessible and contextualised.
The overlap of modelling between Cambridge airport traffic and Hobart Airport Traffic not modelled
within the boundaries of the study, not does it need to be. However, need to note that Cambridge traffic is
not included in the noise modelling. Demand modelling discussed regarding scope for increase of GA
traffic. Substantial increase included in the 94,000 movements.
Request for the inclusion of context regarding Tasmania’s State and Regional planning in the Master Plan
narrative. This to be provided to HIAPL by Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority.
Channel for noise complaints discussed.
Flight tracking technology being installed in Hobart later in 2009 discussed. Precision associated with the
technology likely to increase the accuracy of the flight tracks for the 2014 Master Plan.
Contacts for noise to be provided in supplementary page in Plan.
©Arup F0.5
Draft Minutes for Meeting
Page 1 of 3
Job title
Hobart Airport Master Plan
Job number
206117
Location
Stakeholder session - Land use planning and environment
Hobart International Airport Hotel
File reference
Time & date
2.00 – 4.30
4 June 2009
o
Purpose of meeting
o
Attendance
Apologies
Present HIAPL’s land use planning and environment development of the
Hobart Airport Master Plan 2009
Discuss implications and assumptions
Hobart International Airport Limited – Brett Reiss
Hobart International Airport Limited – John Langford
Government – Jeannie Southgate
State Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts and Environmental
Protection Authority Tasmania – Bill Wilson
State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources – John Parkinson
State Department of Economic Development and Tourism – Alletta Macdonald
Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority - Damien Mackey
Clarence Council – Ald Jock Campbell
Clarence Council – Ross Lovell
Sorell City Council – John Molnar
Arup – Jim Peacock
Arup – Carol Battle
Arup – Kay Casson
Government – Dave Southgate
Government – Nic Pearl
Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts – Chris Murphy
State Department of Economic Development and Tourism – Rowan Sproule
State Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources – Glen Tambling
State Department for Planning and Department of Justice – Peter Fischer
1.


2.

Background to the Master Plan process outlined. Emphasis placed on HIAPL’s
willingness to engage with stakeholders through Arup, the consultant
developing the Master Plan and facilitating the stakeholder process.
Master Plan development process outlined. Requirements stipulated in context
of Airports Act (1996)
J:\206117-00\04-00-00_ARUP PROJECT DATA\04-08-00_STAKEHOLDER_CONSULTATION\WORKSHOPS\ENVIRONMENT_LANDSIDE_PLANNING_WORKSHOP_MINUTES.DOC
©Arup F0.6
Page 2 of 3
3.




3.1





Objectives for the consultation process reviewed and objectives for the session
outlined.
Range of organisations engaged outlined. Presence of Local, State and Federal
government representatives noted.
Environmental Management at Hobart Airport (Kay Casson)
3.1.1
Key points
Review of the requirements outlined by the Airports Act (1996) and how this
interfaces with documentation developed including the HIAPL Airport
Enviornment Strategy and the 2009 Airport Master Plan.
Review of the updates at the Airport which have impacted on the environmental
considerations since 2004.
Statement of the site-wide environmental values, including ten flora species
listed under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and one
flora community listed under then Commonwealth Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This community is the Poa labillardieri
grassland.
Highlight of the potential environmental issues to be considered and the plans
for dealing with the environmental issues.
Review of the specific baseline environmental values resulting from the
proposed change of zoning of 10.5ha to Commercial and Aeronautical uses of
the 22.2ha in Precinct 4, including impacts on Poa labillardieri grassland – as
identified in 2005 AES. Noted that the ecological community (lowland native
grasslands) on the site has been nominated as a threatened ecological
community under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (awaiting Ministerial decision in August 2009) and
contains flora protected under the State’s Threatened Species Protection Act
1995. Outline of the proposed offset to address the environmental impact,
namely the 10.5 hectare green zone in the clear aeronautical land at the north
end of the runway to offset the changed zoning of 10.5 hectares in Precinct 4.
Poa community would be rehabilitated in this area and the conservation areas
will be managed on an ongoing basis.
3.1.2


Comments
Comment that Poa grasslands were extensively farmed and harvested up until
1956 and that these were then significantly disturbed with creation of the
airport. However, this endangered community and the species in it have
regenerated.
Query regarding the extent to which the area is subject to inundation. Noted
that a Flood Study was undertaken for the DFO site planning process. It was
identified that tidal flooding occurs to east of Airport around Sinclair Creek. As
a result, the finish level of new construction has to be 1 metre above flood level.
©Arup F0.6
Page 3 of 3
4.


Land use planning considerations (Brett Riess)
4.1.1
Key points
Outline of scope of the plan. Noted that this is a 20 year plan and therefore
significant areas are marked for aeronautical use
Overview of precint land use, as follows: Precinct 1 plans allow for an increase
in general aviation traffic in the future, including general office space and
hangars. Precinct 2 plans are for mixed use area housing the hotel/fuel
station/ABC learning centre and caravan park. This area is nearly fully
developed. Precinct 3 will continue to be for light industrial and storage
purposes with the uses likely to be linked to aviation freight and shipment of
products to the mainland. Precinct 3 also includes commercial use in the south
eastern corner. Precinct 4 land use to change to accommodate for high-profile
administrative building and offices for GA and fixed base operators. Plans also
allow for potential uses such as retail, short-stay accommodation and
showrooms. It is noted that species of significance are located within this area
and it is felt that partial zoning and repatriating will maintain a substantial part
of the species. Precinct 5 plans for a business park and includes a tiered car
operations and service uses. Precinct 6 is zoned for commercial and industrial
uses and due to the exposure to the highway it is anticipated that this land is
ideal for commercial rather than retail purposes. Precint 8 could potentially
house US Antarctic operations currently based in Christchurch. Traffic
associated with the operations, particularly the C130, may require apron space.
4.1.2










Comments
Queried on when Cambridge Airport is planning to close. Noted that there is no
fixed date but the requirement to operate as an aerodrome has expired. If
closure were to happen, the plans allow for sufficient capacity.
Query regarding road access along Pittwater Road if Antarctic Operation is
located in Precinct 8. Acknowledged that if this development requires an
upgrade of the external road network, HIAPL would need to discuss
enhancements with State and Council.
Query regarding trade waste with regard to the usage on Precint 3. Noted that
salinity and water pollution would be key considerations. Porposed tenat will
remove all trade waste from site.
Query on forecast demand – Master Plan forecasts 4 million passengers by
2029.
Query regarding whether other options are being assessed. Noted that the plans
would produce $1.16 bn in economic value with represents 1 per cent of the
Tasmanian economy and would employ 6,000 people.
Query as to whether additional accommodation is planned. Noted that an area
overlooking the 7 Mile Beach peninsular has been marked for a conference
centre. Noted that the sand dunes are protected. Noted that there is a
requirement to investigate potential linkages between Seven Mile Beach
Strategic Master Plan.
Query regarding the land tenure. Note that the HAIPL land is leasehold title
and leased from the Commonwealth of Australia. Some parcels of land
(precincts 7 and 8) are freehold.
Query regarding the adjacent land. The adjacent land is currently a golf course
and crown land. Noted that while HIAPL are happy to enter into discussions
regarding this land, there are no anticipated plans to require additional land.
Question regarding the source of the planning definitions. Requested that the
same terminology be used as the State Planning Directive. Noted that this will
be investigated and the naming convention in the plan be reviewed.
Query regarding typical land-use applications for airport land. Explained
alternatives have been established as common place to counteract the cyclical
nature of traditional revenue streams for airports.
©Arup F0.6
Appendix C
Public Consultation Submissions and
HIAPL Response
PUBLIC CONSULTATION ‐ SUBMISSIONS AND RESPONSES
Date of Organisation
Comment
receipt
A
Public Consultation Period
1 29/07/2009 Air BP (Pat Mezzatesta)
2 mistakes on page 69.
a. The report says Air BP has 5,000 litres of AVGAS storage; this should be 55,000 litres.
b. on the bottom of page 69 it says there are 30 refuelling trips
per day to the apron area using fuel bowsers. This should read refuelling vehicles
Mention is made (9.4.2 Future development) that refuelling
vehicles will require more than one access point as entry into the apron. Air BP endorses this.
Mention is made (9.5.2 Future development) that Air BP does not
have access to real time aircraft details (arrival/departure/fuel load).
Air BP concurs that such data will assist the planning and coordination of aircraft refuelling.
HIAPL's Response
Location in Draft Master Plan
Text modified to read "55,000" litres of AVGAS and "refuelling vehicles" instead of "fuel bowsers".
Text amended. Section 9.4.2 Noted and appreciated.
No amendment required
Noted. Matter for take‐up as required by airlines and refuelling service provider
No amendment made Mention is made on page 10 that it is envisaged a public access
Mention
is made on page 10 that it is envisaged a public access
Noted and appreciated. The fuel facility will be airside. The public road connecting
Noted and appreciated. The fuel facility will be airside. The public road connecting No amendment made
No amendment made road connecting Holyman Avenue and Surf Road may be required. From Figure 1 and Holyman Avenue and Surf Road is dependent on the scale of development in Precinct 8 and discussions between HIAPL, Clarence and the State.
the expanded view in Figure 21 it appears the public roadway is beyond the Air BP fuel facility. Air BP agrees with this plan to keep the fuel facility fully airside.
2 27/08/2009 Community Information Session
3 15/09/2009 CASA (Darren Angelo)
(Presentation on key features of preliminary draft Master Plan by HIAPL/Arup. The attendees were asked to make any formal comments in writing as the information session was not minuted. No comments received)
Commentary required as to whether Rwy 12/30 extension has considered the current Manual of Standards (MOS) Part 139 requirements with regard to a 90m Runway End Safety Area (RESA). If not, it is recommended that this is detailed in the plan as an area of interest by CASA.
None required
No amendment required. Matter as covered in Section 7.4.2 Potential Runway Extension. E‐mailed response to No amendment required. CASA on 8th October 2009. The RESAs extend 90m beyond runway strip. This RESA length is available at each end though a single obstacle appears within the 90m RESA at the Rwy 12 end, with another potential obstacle beyond the 90m RESA at the Rwy 30 end. These may need to be removed or relocated. CASA has expressed its satisfaction with this response in writing.
It is recommended that section 10.0 or alternatively section 11.0 considers the
following:
Building Construction
CASA requires where facilities are constructed that:
• sensible cladding and roofing materials are used to minimise the possibility of glare effects; and
• glass for buildings is used in a manner to minimise reflectivity and glare
Lighting
CASA recommends that all onsite (external lighting) lighting will be lit down from the horizontal.
HIAPL acknowledges CASA's comments and has modified the Master Plan accordingly: Text added in new Section 11.10 Aviation Safety.
"In terms of building construction and materials, CASA requires that, where facilities are constructed, sensible cladding and roofing materials are used to minimise the possibility of glare effects and also that glass for buildings is used in a manner to minimise reflectivity and glare."
HIAPL acknowledges CASA's comments and has modified the Master Plan accordingly: Text added. Section 11.10 Aviation Safety.
"CASA also recommends that all onsite (external) lighting be lit down from the horizontal, to minimise glare. This will be done subject to assessment of the actual need at the time. HIAPL also notes that certain back‐lit signs are and will continue to be required on the Airport."
Text added. Section 12.3.1 on page 90.
12.0 Environmental Management
Text added "Management of flora and fauna will give priority to the safety Although fauna is mentioned, it is recommended that this section further considers implications with respect to bird or wildlife hazards . All habitats on Airport land will the need to ensure the airport environment is managed in order to minimise bird and be managed in accordance with CASA safety requirements."
animal attraction and therefore reduce the risk of an aircraft strike with wildlife.
4 29/09/2009 Airservices Australia (Loretta Section 1.1 ‐ Background
References modified.
Text amended. Section 1.1 and Section 9.1.2
Petroff )
Reference in paragraph five to "Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting Services" is
incorrect. It should be Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting. This error is also made in Section 9.1.2
NAVIGATIONAL SYSTEMS
HIAPL understands that ASA does not expect this detail in Master Plans. These No amendment made Airservices Australia is unable to fully assess the potential impacts on navigational impacts will be assessed as developments occur through the necessary formal aids until the detailed plans, including specific heights (AHO) and coordinates for each processes. ASA has provided reference docs processes. ASA has provided reference docs ‐ Building Restricted Area and Vehicle Building Restricted Area and Vehicle development, are available.
Critical Area for the Instrument Landing System (ILS ‐ Localiser & Glide Path) for HIAPL reference.
ATC
Section 2.2 ‐ Development Objectives
We strongly suggest that Airside Aerodrome Signage be included as a key objective. Airservices has made many requests for this signage, as currently no signage on taxiways or at the runway holding points exists and this poses a safety risk especially in low visibility operations.
Text is added to explain the current situation in agreeing with CASA what economical actual safety outcome will be appropriate for Hobart Airport. This signage is in any event a matter of (important) operational detail beneath development objectives. HIAPL is actively engaged with CASA to resolve inconsistencies of guidance within the Manual of Standards relating to movement area guidance providing safety outcomes suited to specific environments and is awaiting CASA response. HIAPL remains prepared to provide cost‐effective movement area guidance signage properly suited to traffic types at Hobart Airport.
Text added. Section 9.4. "Airside Aerodrome Signage which assists to reduce safety risk on busy movement areas, for example in low visibility operations, is not currently provided at Hobart Airport in light of current traffic levels and conditions. However, at time of writing HIAPL is actively engaged with CASA to resolve conflicting messages in the relevant standards about scope and purpose of such signage, as HIAPL is keen to provide cost‐effective movement area guidance signage properly suited to traffic types at Hobart Airport."
Comment
HIAPL's Response
receipt
A
No amendment made ASA's important perspective is noted.
Section 7.3 ‐ Existing Taxiway and Runway System.
ASA would welcome an extension of the parallel taxiway (Alpha) to full runway length Extension of the parallel taxiway is described in Sections 7 and 14. As per Section in the next five years. The full length taxiway would considerably reduce taxi times for 14.3, HIAPL envisages the extension of Taxiway Alpha parallel to Runway 12/30 linking departing traffic and thus provide cost savings for the major operators. The taxiway to the runway ends in the longer term i.e. beyond the first 5 years of the Master Plan. extension would also reduce delays for inbound sequencing, as time between aircraft The provision of this type of infrastructure is highly dependent on the industry's need for such infrastructure and the commercial discussions that would then follow.
has to now be increased to allow for aircraft backtracking after landing.
Section 7.4.2 ‐ Potential Runway Extension
To extend runway 12/30 to the north‐west may not be appropriate due to significant terrain to the west and north‐west which penetrates the OLS by up to 370m. There will need to be an assessment of each development in precincts near the runway as per normal Airservices assessment procedures (i.e. through Airport Relations).
Runway extension to the north has not been proposed in the Master Plan. Only the No amendment made potential for extension has been discussed in this document. The Master Plan notes the assessment was based on a geometric exercise and runway length calculations. Prior to any decision to extend the runway, HIAPL will engage in appropriate studies including an obstacle survey, noting that extension will cause the penetration to extend by a small margin but will also change its lateral offset relative to the new runway threshold. HIAPL will assess the performance and safety implications and, if appropriate, seek CASA input should it still wish to proceed with runway extension No amendment made As noted in Section 6.6, the decision regarding the future of Cambridge Airport is Section 7.4.3 ‐ Potential Alternative Runway
entirely for its owner to make. Given the comments in Section 6.6 that Cambridge Airport is no longer required to operate as an airport, consideration might be given to bringing forward into the next HIAPL has investigated a potential cross‐runway (as described in Section 7.4.3.) but this type of infrastructure enhancement has not been proposed in the Master Plan. five years the development of a crossing GA runway. It would create significant air traffic management issues if the current Cambridge traffic moved to Hobart without The current runway has significant spare capacity for an increase in aircraft movements for the foreseeable future.
any additional runway and taxiway development.
Text has been modified to attribute responsibility for airspace management and Text amended, Section 8.2
ENVIRONMENT NOISE AND ANEF
architecture to the Office of Airspace Regulation within CASA.
Section 8.2 ‐ Aircraft Noise (Responsibilities)
The second paragraph states aircraft management or airspace management are the responsibility of the aircraft operators and Airservices. This is not correct as the "Office of Airspace Regulation" within CASA is responsible for airspace management. In the third paragraph it states Airservices Australia are also responsible for the development of the airspace architecture (flight tracks). This is not correct as the "Office of Airspace Regulation" within CASA is responsible for airspace management and airspace architecture.
Section 8.1 & 8.2 ‐Aircraft Noise (Introduction and Responsibilities)
At commencement of public consultation (27th July), the 2038 Long Range ANEF Text amended in Section 8. Updated to reflect that endorsement has now been The ANEF was endorsed for technical accuracy in the approved manner on 25
presented in the Master Plan had not been endorsed. Endorsement was received on received.
August 2009.
25th August and HIAPL announced the endorsement in both the press (The Mercury newspaper) and on its website in early September . Section 8 of the Master Plan has been updated accordingly. Section 8.4 ‐ Noise Modelling Methodology
Text modified "Aircraft Noise Modelling is required to be undertaken using the US Text amended, Section 8.4.
Paragraph one states "Aircraft Noise Modelling is required to be undertaken using the Federal Aviation Authority’s (FAA) Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.2a and 7.0. US Federal Aviation Authority's (FAA) Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 7.0. This The modelling for Hobart has been undertaken using INM 7.0."
is incorrect as both INM Version 6.2a and Version 7.0 are acceptable versions in terms of endorsement for technical accuracy in the approved manner.
Section 8.5 ‐ Aircraft Operations and Noise
In paragraph four, reference is made to precise flight tracks in regard to NFPMS, as this implies a level of accuracy that is not true.
Text change from "record the precise flight track" to "more accurately record the flight track".
Text amended, Section 8.5.
Section 12.3.5 ‐ Waste and Hazardous Substances (Management Strategies)
Paragraph four states. "Previously identified contaminated sites such as the fire
training area have been remediated and measures put in place to prevent future contamination." It is correct that measures have been put in place, but the fire training ground is currently contaminated and is subject to on going monitoring.
gg
y
j
g g
g
Section 12.3.6 ‐ Air and Soil Quality (Management Strategies)
Paragraph five states "Previously identified contaminated sites such as the Fire
Training area have been or are being remediated. This includes the Fire Station site being remediated by Airservices Australia where the recent site assessment report by GHD September 2008 identified contaminants TPH, PFOS and PFOA in the soil and groundwater. The report has recommended further site investigation works to identify the extent of contamination and rehabilitation works."
Text changed to "ASA has advised that the fire training ground has been contaminated by previous fire and rescue activities, and is subject to ongoing monitoring. ASA has introduced and put in place measures to prevent future contamination."
Text amended, Section 12.3.5.
Statement above rectified as shown.
As above.
The reference to the fire training area is contradicted by the statement above
(Section 12.3.5). The reference to the Fire Station is not correct as the contamination there has been related to TPH. There has not been PFOS/PFOA testing at the fire station although recent testing as part of the remediation of the TPH contamination has identified potential contamination from AFFF and further testing is being sought.
Text changed to "The recent site assessment report of the Fire Station by GHD dated Text amended, Section 12.3.6.
September 2008 identified the contaminant TPH. There has not been PFOS/PFOA testing at the Fire Station, though recent testing as part of the remediation of the TPH contamination has identified potential contamination from AFFF (fire fighting foam). Accordingly the report has recommended further site investigation works to identify the extent of contamination and rehabilitation works."
Comment
HIAPL's Response
receipt
A
5 14/10/2009 Clarence City Council (Andrew Council advises the Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd and the Federal Minister that, Council's recognition and support noted and appreciated. HIAPL met with Mayor, No amendment required
Paul )
whilst it recognises and strongly supports the role and importance of the Hobart General Manager and Economic Development Officer on 26th October 2009 to clarify Airport as a passenger and freight gateway and development hub for the southern Council's written comments and HIAPL's responses following reflect the advancements region, the Preliminary Draft 2009 Hobart Airport Master Plan requires modification in understanding made on all sides
to address the following issues:
1. the requirement for the Master Plan to consider the use and development of Airport land in the context of local and regional planning schemes;
2. the need for greater attention to the availability of infrastructure services (eg. roads, wastewater, stormwater) and verification of the capacity of the local environment to sustain the proposed development objectives; Text modified and Figures added, Section 11.
HIAPL has endeavoured to achieve this. The text is modified for greater alignment with the 2007 Clarence Planning Scheme. The evident local context is one of commercial and industrial development and changing of zones to foster additional development of this type.
The Clarence Scheme was developed consistent with current State regional planning provisions. Clarence acknowledges that the two new regional planning initiatives ‐ Planning Directive No 1 and the Southern Tasmanian Regional Planning Project ‐ have not been completed such that the Master Plan can consider them for alignment. Completion includes how the local Clarence Scheme, to which the Master Plan needs to most closely align, will itself need to change to align with the regional initiatives. Clarence also acknowledges that the airport is both unique and will be a major business district in its own right, in the way all airports duly and naturally become as they grow to provide for the first priority core aeronautical demands on them The DMP text modifications have now elaborated further on elements of alignment, Clarence's concern was evidently that there be time to understand and plan for the As above.
external infrastructure needs and any other potential off‐airport impacts associated with on‐airport developments. In this vein Council was keen to ensure on‐airport development was not ad hoc and that the intent of the Master Plan would be honoured. The modified text is aimed to set out the elements of planning and future consultation that would assure against this. The impacts on utilities and services are also as already described in Sections 9 and 13. Clarence's concern acknowledges the responsibility either the State or Council have for wider infrastructure planning issues.
3. given the potential implications of a high growth scenario the need for an assessment of the likely socio‐economic impacts ;
Though socio‐economic assessment is not a requirement under the Airports Act, and As above.
has not been provided in any of the approved 2008 or 2009 Master Plans of other airports, HIAPL's commitment to continue the now‐established level of consultation in the modified text referred to above and the checks and balances in the Commonwealth planning regime provide an assurance that assessments will happen where scales of development recommend it. Given that the high growth scenario in the Master Plan is an aspirational upper bound of potential development, it would not make sense to undertake such an assessment at this stage.
4. whilst recognising that development and growth of non‐aeronautical activities at the airport will generally be positive for the economy and community it is important to ensure that planning controls for the non‐aeronautical development provide sufficient transparency and certainty and mitigate the potential for land use conflict between activities at the airport and activities in abutting zones ;
As above.
Recognition noted and appreciated.
As per the response to point 1, an airport is a unique centre of activity and should be recognised as such. There is a real need for a range of uses to facilitate the overall airport operation and the land use plan has been put together in this context, but with consideration to the Council's Planning Scheme. This has been elaborated on in the draft Master Plan. Freehold land purchased by HIAPL in Precincts 7 and 8 and designated as Recreation by City of Clarence have been removed from the plan. HIAPL intends to work together with Clarence to ensure development on this land aligns as best as is practicable with abutting zones. Clarence has now noted and agrees with this approach
Refer to response to point 1. At this stage, there are both overlaps and discrepancies As above.
between the Clarence Planning Scheme and Tasmanian Resource Planning and Development Commission’ss (RPDC
Development Commission
(RPDC’s)
s) Planning Directive No. 1 (PD1). However as Planning Directive No. 1 (PD1). However as
RPDC’s definitions are work‐in‐progress and do not as yet describe permitted uses, HIAPL has considered the definitions and uses proposed by Clarence in developing this Master Plan. Again, these have been elaborated upon in the draft Master Plan since meeting with Clarence and Clarence also acknowledges the status of PD1 and HIAPL's consequent approach to aligning with the Clarence Scheme.
5. the requirement under the Airports Regulations 1997 for the land use planning terminology, definitions and control provisions used in the Master Plan to be consistent with the State Planning Directive (No.1);
consistent with the State Planning Directive (No.1); 6. the need to invoke the requirement for a Major Development Plan, including The Master Plan sets out the direction for possible development but actual staging, in instances where a series of significant consecutive or concurrent development is governed by different mechanisms and HIAPL is fully aware of this. developments are to occur to ensure that the impacts and implications are The requirements which trigger an MDP are set out in the Airports Act 1996. HIAPL appropriately assessed through a process that includes assessment and consideration will comply with the federal requirements and guidelines as developments occur. of third party submissions”. To elaborate on the above decision I confirm that Council recognises the important Noted and appreciated
regional role of the Hobart Airport as a passenger and freight gateway and development hub for southern Tasmania. As above.
No amendment required.
Comment
HIAPL's Response
receipt
A
Sustainable development at the Hobart Airport would be a welcome addition to the Noted and appreciated
Clarence economic base, as would the significant employment opportunities that can be anticipated if the development proposed by the draft plan occurs. Projects such as the proposed consolidated freight area (Precinct 9) are important initiatives that will improve access to markets for local producers.
Text and Figures added, Section 11.
However, in regard to the proposed non‐aeronautical development at the airport site, The requirements of the travelling public and the airport community are such that synergies can be found in other areas ‐ the hotel, convention centre, airline offices, the Airports Act and the Airports Regulations clearly require a much higher level of Centre of Excellence and education facility, Antarctic operations etc. Significant integration with local and State planning regimes than is currently detailed in the opportunities could be realised on the Airport. HIAPL has been very conscious of the preliminary draft .
local planning requirements. The additional detail and figures have since been provided in Section 11 to address Clarence's concern.
The final Master Plan is required to address the extent of consistency with the Noted and understood.
As above.
Clarence Planning Scheme and other applicable schemes based on State legislation. In Unfortunately many of these schemes are work‐in‐progress as noted above. Generic planning proposals also will not take due consideration of the unique nature of an addition to the existing Clarence Planning Scheme there are a number of planning airport as a centre of activity for transport, tourism and business. In some instances projects in progress which can assist in achieving the desired integration. These include the Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority regional planning project (STCA), such definitions may be prohibitive and discourage efficiencies to an airport operation.
the draft Southern Integrated Transport Plan (STCA/DIER), the Clarence Retail‐
STCA provided its own comment on the PDMP, noted and responded to below
Commercial Land Use Study (Clarence Council), and the water and sewerage infrastructure planning processes of the newly formed regional water authority (Southern Water). HIAPL incorporated those elements from these schemes which were applicable to the As above.
At the planning workshops convened by the project consultants as part of the preparation of the draft plan, Council officers requested that the land use planning Airport. HIAPL has further considered the definitions and uses of the Clarence in provisions use terminology, definitions and control provisions that are consistent with developing this Master Plan as noted previously. Again, these have been elaborated the Clarence Planning Scheme and/or the State Planning Directive (No.1). This has not upon in the draft Master Plan since the meeting with Clarence.
occurred in the preliminary draft document, despite the requirements of regulation 5.02 of the Airports Regulations 1997. There would appear to be no planning reason why the land use development sections of the master plan relating to “landside” development could not be prepared with consistent terminology and provisions to the State Planning Directive No.1 model (currently under review). 6 16/10/2009 Tourism & Transport Forum (Brett Gale )
It is noted that the existing Hobart Airport Master Plan 2004 can remain in place until replaced by a new plan approved by the Minister . Opportunities therefore exist to undertake further work aimed at achieving integration and consistency of the draft master plan with existing and emerging local and regional plans.
HIAPL has now explained to Clarence at the 26th October meeting that HIAPL is obliged by the Act to give the Minister its DMP by a fixed time, which Clarence now understands and accepts. The other clarifications at the meeting in any event mean that Clarence no longer has the need that caused it to make this observation.
No amendment made Once the draft master plan is formally approved Council would welcome the opportunity to work with you to deliver on the proposed development outcomes.
The Tourism and Transport Forum (TTF) strongly supports the Hobart Airport Preliminary Draft Master Plan 2009 (PDMP) without amendment.
Noted and appreciated. HIAPL equally looks forward to continuing to regularly engage with Clarence, for these and other purposes.
Noted and appreciated.
No amendment made No amendment made Noted and appreciated.
As a major gateway for Tasmania, Hobart Airport is a critical piece of tourism infrastructure. The continued unhindered growth of Hobart Airport is therefore vital for Hobart, the Tasmanian and Australian economy. TTF considers that the 2009 PDMP will facilitate Hobart Airport's potential as an important gateway and hub for passengers and freight, efficiently using and developing the airport and associated commercial activities in an environmentally responsible manner.
No amendment made Notwithstanding the economic significance of Hobart Airport to the Tasmanian economy, particularly in terms of employment and contribution to gross state product, Hobart Airport makes a vital contribution to Australia's tourism industry, which is well recognised in the 2009 PDMP.
which
is well recognised in the 009 P MP.
The importance of Hobart Airport to the Tasmanian tourism industry cannot be understated. As the main tourism gateway for the state, Hobart Airport plays a vital role in the ongoing success of Tasmania's tourism sector.
No amendment made Noted and appreciated.
As a facilitator of air services, Hobart Airport has no doubt played a vital role in Noted and appreciated.
Tasmania's success. For the year end May 2009, Hobart Airport facilitated 2,144, 678 domestic passengers, which is expected to increase to 4.25 million by 2029.
No amendment required. As the 2009 PDMP identifies , the economic benefits generated by Hobart Airport for TTF's observation of possible underestimation in the existing and potential future economic impact in terms of employment and contributions to GSP described in Australia and Tasmania are significant, these include supporting an estimated 500 Tasmanian jobs, however TTF considers Hobart Airport ' s total contribution to jobs to Section 3, is noted.
be far greater through tourism spending facilitated by the airport. Hobart Airport also supports $50 million in value added for the Tasmanian economy.
No amendment made PUBLIC CONSULTATION ‐ SUBMISSIONS AND RESPONSES
Comment
HIAPL's Response
receipt
A
Hobart Airport has shown a strong commitment to ensuring its contribution to the Noted and appreciated.
state and national economies and the broader tourism and transport industries continues to grow into the future . For example , Hobart Airport intends to spend up to $1.157 billion on terminal and commercial development between 2009 and 2029.
No amendment made Importantly, Hobart Airport' s 2009 PDMP has identified a wide range of aeronautical Noted and appreciated.
and nonaeronautical uses for the site. The tourism industry has a heightened awareness of the effects of a highly volatile and risk prone aviation industry following events such as the collapse of Ansett, September 11, SARS and, more recently, the global recession and H1N1 Influenza. TTF therefore considers both aeronautical and non‐aeronautical uses at Hobart Airport to be vital in ensuring growth in the future.
No amendment made TTF would also like to recognise Hobart Airport 's approach to precinct and land use Noted and appreciated. Whilst the particular comment regarding responsibility is planning, which very clearly illustrates the nature, timing and development objectives noted the Master Plan is not a platform for directing such responsibility
p
g,
y
y
,
g
p
j
p
g
p
y
for the various airport precincts. Similarly, the Landside Transport Strategy presents a detailed and responsible blueprint for how access to and from the airport will be managed and planned for. However from TTF's perspective it is also important that state and local governments recognise their responsibility to provide adequate transport infrastructure and services to and from the airport.
No amendment made TTF would also like to commend Hobart Airport on their commitment to community and stakeholder engagement and consultation, particularly the second Stakeholder Consultation Forum held in Hobart on Friday 2 October 2009. Hobart Airport's management team have clearly invested a significant amount of time and effort into not only PDMP public consultations, but also developing ongoing engagement and dialogue with stakeholders and the wider community.
7 16/10/2009 Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts (Claire Ellis)
Noted and appreciated. In fact, the workshop on 2 October was the sixth workshop No amendment made overall held by HIAPL in the preparation of the DMP, after workshops in March in relation to aeronautical development and noise in the PDMP, June in relation to land use / environment in the PDMP, and the Public Information Session and discussion held in August after commencement of public consultation, plus the first Stakeholder Consultation Forum. Once again , TTF strongly endorses the Hobart Airport 2009 Preliminary Draft Master Noted and appreciated
Plan.
No amendment required. Tourism Tasmania is very supportive of the Master Plan, and congratulates Hobart Airport on a comprehensive document. No amendment required. Noted and appreciated
As a member of the Hobart International Airport Stakeholder Group I was pleased to Noted and appreciated
receive a presentation of the Master Plan. Much of our joint work focuses on improving the capacity and frequency of air traffic Noted and appreciated. It will also be a primary goal of HIAPL.
into Hobart and this will continue to be a primary goal for us. Tourism Tasmania will continue to work closely with Hobart Airport on a range of opportunities as regular affordable air access is vital and in fact the key factor in visitation trends for the whole state, not just for tourism in the Hobart region.
Noted and appreciated. HIAPL will be reciprocating
No amendment required. No amendment made No amendment made The only specific comment regarding the document content relates to the passenger The Tourism Australia Projections were reviewed and used only as a secondary data No amendment made set and sense‐check and context for the primary approach taken for passenger forecast data. It is agreed that your approach and forecast figures are reasonable however I note in section 6.4 passenger traffic Tourism Australia Projections are used. forecasting. The projections were not directly included in any forecasting itself and, as These projections are based on the National Visitors Survey (NVS) which uses a small such, a review of the NVS projections would have no material impact on the forecasts sample size for Tasmania. The NVS results have been quite inconsistent with those of as described in the Master Plan. Nonetheless, HIAPL intends to discuss the NVS in its the Tasmanian Visitors Survey (TVS) which is generally considered to be the most regular consultation with Tourism Tasmania. As set out in Section 6.4.1, the primary reliable and recommended source of interstate visitation figures.
and material approach in generating the Master Plan forecast was to take forecasts from other airport Master Plans in the public domain, for airports with which Hobart has existing connections, and to weight these according to the proportion of passenger traffic to and from Hobart.
II would also like to highlight the immediate opportunities that Tourism Tasmania has o ld also like to highlight the immediate opport nities that To rism Tasmania has Noted and appreciated. HIAPL acknowledges the Department's understanding of Noted and appreciated HIAPL ackno ledges the Department's nderstanding of
Te t modified and Fig res added Section 11
Text modified and Figures added, Section 11.
identified that would be appropriate use in the commercial development precincts, aviation‐related business development and diversification that can benefit both the specifically tourism accommodation and conference facilities. Airport and the region. The Master Plan proposes both hotel and conference facilities.
A study undertaken in August 2008 by BDA Marketing found Greater Hobart was In response to other comment on the PDMP about the required degree of relationship rapidly approaching accommodation capacity. With an annual average occupancy of with local land use planning, the DMP clarifies Commercial Precinct 4 and the 80%+ the study suggested that currently there is very little capacity for growth Terminal Precinct as precincts where accommodation would occur. In response to other comment on the PDMP about the required degree of relationship with local through summer months with January to March operating at over 90% occupancy. land use planning, the DMP clarifies the Terminal Precinct as a precinct where such The shoulder periods April, May & October, November are at about 75 – 80% full. facilities would occur.
Therefore supply is already stretched for seven months of the year. Significant accommodation shortages in Hobart are anticipated by 2010. The study showed that to reach our T21 targets an additional 700 – 1000 rooms would be required by 2010 and double that number by 2017. Currently there are only 272 rooms under construction in Hobart. Further, only 155 rooms have been completed in Hobart in the last two years, representing a significant opportunity for development.
Conference facilities also provide an immediate opportunity for suitable d l
t Th T
i Vi it S
t th t i th
di J
2009
Comment
HIAPL's Response
receipt
A
The Hobart International Airport is recognised as a critical part of our tourism Noted and appreciated. HIAPL intends to continue this relationship with the infrastructure for Tasmania. As such I am very pleased to be able to continue to work Department.
closely with you on the future development of this site.
8 16/10/2009 Qantas (Rob Sharp)
The Qantas Group welcome the opportunity to comment on the Hobart International Noted and appreciated. Airport Draft Master Plan (the DMP). In recent years there has been strong passenger growth for Hobart. It is therefore timely to undertake a review of the future planning for Hobart International Airport but it is also crucial to recognise the importance of aligning the timing of the delivery of new infrastructure with demand for that infrastructure. The significant costs and operational impacts associated with the provision of new infrastructure and for this reason it is imperative that the airport work closely with its airline customers to ensure the mutual alignment of outcomes.
No amendment made No amendment required.
As set out in the Development Objectives in Section 2, HIAPL is committed to planning No amendment made appropriately phased infrastructure to meet changing demands. HIAPL understands that the timing of infrastructure provision needs industry support to bring such developments to fruition.
IIt is pleasing to note that the DMP identifies the importance of appropriately phased i l i
h h DMP id ifi h i
f
i l h d A
As above
b
aeronautical development.
N
No amendment made d
d
Noted and appreciated. HIAPL will review the requirements for roads and parking Proposed road changes
The passenger experience starts well before entry to the terminal. Good road access continually as demand increases or changes. This is stated in the Master Plan.
to and from the airport and the availability of drop off and parking facilities are essential elements of an efficient airport. Qantas supports ongoing reviews of the road network and appropriate level of parking facilities in line with satisfying growing demands for this infrastructure.
Proposed road changes
The PDMP indicates that potentially significant changes are required to the road network to ensure that it can meet projected passenger demand and to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated by the various proposed non aeronautical commercial developments. It is critical that passenger traffic is prioritised in any plans for road changes to ensure there is no loss of amenity or increases in travel times for passengers as a result of the proposed commercial developments. Qantas is pleased to note that this principle has been adopted by Hobart international Airport at page 82 of the PDMP.
Aircraft operations and noise
As the PDMP highlights new technologies such as Required Navigational Performance (RNP) and Ground Based Augmentation Systems, as well as operating modes such as continuous Descent Approaches can have significant benefits in terms of noise. The Qantas Group are investing significantly in new generation aircraft that are substantially quieter than older aircraft. In additional, the Qantas Group are investing in technology such as RNP and the associated training required to utilise these technologies leading to noise benefits but also resulting in lower fuel usage and as a result less emissions.
9 16/10/2009 Southern Tasmanian Councils The Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project makes the following submission to Authority (Damian Mackey)
the draft 2009 Hobart Airport Master Plan:
• As the Hobart International Airport is exempt from Tasmania's planning system, the HIAPL's current master planning process is being developed outside the regional planning process. In terms of operating a cohesive and inclusive planning system, it would be preferable if Airport land were not exempt, or at least only aeronautical use and development were exempt. It is acknowledged that the current master planning process has no influence over this matter.
The Master Plan states in Section 11.7 "It will be important to maintain the principle No amendment required.
of priority for terminal users, particularly over development traffic. The number of access points along Holyman Avenue is critical and will require careful consideration of actual flows as demand increases."
No amendment made Noted and appreciated. Also presumably well understood by stakeholder aviation authorities. The potential for lower noise impacts and emissions than are contemplated in the way required of a Master Plan is welcomed by HIAPL. Whilst confidently expected within the industry, including airports, it is not the place of the Master Plan to commit the aircraft and airline industry to delivery on these initiatives or to rely on them, however.
HIAPL agrees that the current process does not provide to deal with the matter as Text modified and Figures added, Section 11.
STRPP would prefer it. Nonetheless, HIAPL has endeavoured to align its planning for development with the 2007 Clarence Planning Scheme. As a result of this comment and that of Clarence City Council the DMP also discusses the relationship between Clarence and regional planning in more detail.
• The Regional Planning Project recognises the key strategic importance of the
• The Regional Planning Project recognises the key strategic importance of the
Noted and appreciated
Noted and appreciated.
No amendment required
No amendment required. aeronautical functions of the Hobart Airport ,and will seek to ensure these are protected.
• Until regional commercial and industrial strategies are developed next year, it will Noted. HIAPL intends to continue its liaison with the STRPP through its formal No amendment required. not be possible to provide detailed advice in regard to the 'fit' of the non‐aeronautical Stakeholder Consultation program, and other opportunities as they arise, including to components of the Airport Master Plan with broader regional directions.
keep abreast of progress of the Project.
In general, however, the following broad strategic comments can be provided:
Noted and appreciated
• Commercial and industrial development that has synergies with the aeronautical function of Hobart Airport would be supported on the Airport site.
No amendment made • Commercial and industrial development that has no synergies with the aeronautical HIAPL considers that all development planning presented in the DMP is at least function of the airport, or otherwise has no spatial need to be located on airport land, complementary to and supportive of the major business district that airports duly and naturally become, as they grow to provide for the core aeronautical demand that would not be supported
development planning also provides for as its first priority.
Comment
HIAPL's Response
receipt
A
A response was sought from local Airservices ATC to this one comment of this nature No amendment made 10 16/10/2009 Private submission (Michael I believe that in the Draft Plan the flight tracks shown in Section
received. As a number of arrangements of the type referred to in the response exist Wadsley)
8.6 under Figure 24: Arrival Flight Track on page 61 and Figure 25: Departure Flight Tracks on page 62 are highly idealised. It is my personal observation around the Airport, additional discussion in the Master Plan of the following detail for that arriving flights often fly directly over Richmond on a number of different paths. It all these arrangements has not been considered necessary. Mr Wadsley will be receiving a copy of these responses to his comments.
is my personal observation that as well as directly overflying Richmond from the Visual Flight Rules traffic ‐ aircraft flown by sight ‐ use the Coal River Valley as a south, departing flights also pass over the town from other directions.
primary flight path for travel in and out of Cambridge and Hobart Airports. Richmond lies at the southern end of this valley. Richmond Township is designated a VFR checkpoint for ATC on the aeronautical charts. As a result VFR pilots plan to fly via Richmond Township as they are often asked by ATC to report passing that point for traffic management purposes. Instrument Flight Rules procedures for arrivals Runway 12 and departures Runway 30 stipulate flight paths that will at times result in the aircraft over flying the Richmond area. The flight paths in most cases vary due to specific aircraft performance. As a result there will be both vertical and lateral Richmond is an historic Georgian village in a rural setting. I believe that overflights by As noted in Section 8, HIAPL recognises the potential impact of aircraft noise and has No direct amendment made. Text added to Section 8.2: "At the time of writing, the numbers to call with any aircraft noise concerns are Noise Enquiry Service phone 1800 commercial aircraft do nothing to improve the ambience of Richmond and can often undertaken ANEF noise modelling per the Airports Act 1996. The modelling of the 802 584 (freecall) or 1300 302 240 (local call)."
be quite deleterious. I am very concerned that increased commercial air traffic over 2038 ANEF, representing a tripling of overall demand, shows the least contour (20 Richmond will cause degradation of its ambience. It would be my preference that all ANEF) over Pitt Water away from Richmond. As Section 8 notes, if a location is air traffic be directed well clear of Richmond, particularly if the number of daily flights outside the 20 ANEF it does not mean the location is not exposed to aircraft noise. to and from Hobart Airport is increased.
For planning purposes, however, such locations are formally recognised as being suitable for the recognised most sensitive normal land use, residential development.
Section 13 of the Draft Plan, concerning Landside Transport, mainly concerns itself with the immediately surrounding roads. It has been my personal observation that the nearby Cambridge Park, industrial, commercial and retail estate has brought much increased commercial and industrial traffic through the town of Richmond and its surrounding countryside. This commercial and industrial traffic is likely to increase as the Brighton Transport Hub is developed. I am very concerned and apprehensive that further development of Hobart Airport will just add to the traffic through Richmond and the Coal River Valley. As well as threatening the stability of old buildings and structures, the traffic greatly detracts from the tourist experience in Richmond and the surrounding countryside.
Richmond and the surrounding countryside.
11 20/10/2009 DIER (David Spence)
The wider road network off Airport is the responsibility of DIER and HIAPL will work No amendment made with DIER (as described below) and indeed Clarence (as noted above) to understand road upgrades that may be required in the vicinity of the Airport. The developments on Cambridge Park are not HIAPL's and cannot be influenced by HIAPL. This is also true of the Brighton Transport Hub which is a Tasmanian Government funded project some distance from the Airport.
I would not like to see further development of Hobart Airport until alternative heavy These potential bypass options are the responsibility of DIER. HIAPL will be working vehicular routes, such as a Sorell bypass to the east and a Flagstaff Gully bypass to the with DIER as noted above
west are in operation to provide properly designed commercial and industrial vehicle conduits from the airport to and from the north.
No amendment made Noted
The Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) has portfolio responsibility for the planning and management of the state's strategic transport and infrastructure system. In the context of Hobart Airport, DIER's strategic interest is to:
• Maintain the efficient functioning of the Airport for passenger and freight traffic; and
P t t th ffi i
d f t f th T
Hi h
f
ll
d
The draft Master Plan provides a very good overview of future development Noted and appreciated.
intentions at the Airport, including planning for forecast growth in passenger movements, increase in aviation‐related development and further commercial development. No amendment required
We note that the majority of land is identified for non‐aviation related uses, and this raises issues in terms of broader metropolitan planning. DIER's main concerns relate to the impact of additional traffic volumes from planned and potential developments at the airport on the safe and efficient functioning of the Tasman Highway. The main
at the airport on the safe and efficient functioning of the Tasman Highway. The main issues identified are:
• Operation of the Tasman Highway/Holyman Ave roundabout; and
• Impact on the Tasman Highway through traffic volume increases at other intersections.
No amendment required. HIAPL and DIER met on Tuesday 6th October to discuss these issues. As agreed at this No amendment made useful session, HIAPL and DIER intend to work together moving forward to identify and resolve operational and capacity issues on the Tasman Highway and at the Holyman Avenue roundabout.
Holyman Avenue roundabout. The Master Plan covers a twenty‐year period, and many future proposals and impacts HIAPL acknowledges and agrees with DIER’s comment that future cooperation is No amendment made are currently unknown. The forecast growth at the airport will require active essential with regard to Airport impacts on the State Road network. This cooperation management of the State Road network and further analysis and discussion between will be occurring as noted above.
DIER and HIAPL will allow the appropriate identification of any future upgrades.
Comment
HIAPL's Response
receipt
A
Priority will be given to terminal users on Holyman Avenue. This is noted in Section Potential impacts
The developments proposed within the Master Plan will see increased traffic 11.7 "It will be important to maintain the principle of priority for terminal users, movements into and out of the airport, connecting to the Tasman Highway. In this particularly over development traffic. The number of access points along Holyman context DIER makes the following comments in relation to the proposed Avenue is critical and will require careful consideration of actual flows as demand developments:
increases."
• Terminal and airport related development ‐ Development that supports the functioning of the airport for passengers and freight ‐ including catering to forecast growth in passenger numbers and an increase in airport related services (e.g. hire car, Antarctic access developments) ‐ is generally supported by DIER as consistent with the primary, aviation‐related activities of the Airport.
No amendment made • Non‐aeronautical developments (e.g. retail, office park) ‐The majority of the development proposed within the Master Plan is for non‐aviation uses. In its submission to the DFO, DIER outlined its concerns regarding increased commercial ,
g
g
development at the Airport. It is elsewhere noted what HIAPL considers to be the relationship between the Text modified and Figures added, Section 11.
development planning presented in the DMP and the major business district that airports duly and naturally become, as they grow to provide for the core aeronautical p
y
y
,
yg
p
demand that development planning also provides for as its first priority. HIAPL acknowledges there is matching obligation to work with the providers of supporting infrastructure to properly plan for that development in good time as the plans evolve over time into proposals. Hobart Airport is isolated from larger urban/residential catchments, and commercial development in this location has the potential to increase vehicle trips to a greater extent than similar developments within the urban boundary. The Airport is not serviced by regular public transport. Integrating land‐use and transport planning can encourage a mix of uses within a concentrated location that supports greater modal choice and decreases reliance on cars. For this reason, where possible, DIER prefers major commercial development to be within or adjacent to the existing urban boundary.
DIER's preference is noted. Given its location, and inherent nature, the Airport cannot No amendment made benefit from the concentrated mix of uses in a truly urban environment. However, it is both sensible and desirable for HIAPL to pursue diversification of its services and revenue base as described in Section 11.1. Regarding urban boundaries, HIAPL notes the Airport abuts the established Cambridge Park commercial and industrial precinct and the steady rezoning of that area for additional commercial and industrial development, and that the urban populations of Midway Point and Sorell lie beyond the Airport from the City and its inner suburbs.
The Airport is served by a shuttle bus service operated by Tasmanian Redline Coaches. The scale of development in the precincts currently does not justify a regular bus service. However, the draft Master Plan notes HIAPL's intention for increased public transport use, in particular for terminal users. However, this aspiration also applies to other on‐Airport development.
As some commercial development is approved or has taken place at the airport (e.g. Noted and understood. HIAPL recognizes the importance of the Tasman Highway as No amendment made service station, hotel and the DFO, which was subsequently approved) and further the principal gateway to the Airport. The ongoing relationship with DIER committed increases in traffic volumes are likely, DIER will need to ensure appropriate strategies to above will maintain this recognition.
are in place to maintain the current function of the Tasman Hwy.
KEY ISSUES
DIER has identified the following network issues related to the Master Plan:
Holyman Avenue Roundabout
Any intensification of development at the Airport will primarily impact on the Holyman Avenue roundabout, as the major access to the Airport. The majority of commercial development is located along Holyman Avenue, including the DFO.
Noted
No amendment made A major issue affecting the operation of the roundabout will be the timing and Noted and understood
number of right turn vehicle movements into Holyman Ave from the west during morning peak as passengers arrive for early morning flights from Hobart. This will see movements occurring against peak period am flows. No amendment made Under the conditions of the DFO permit, HIAPL is required to contribute to upgrades DIER's suggestion about alternative means of contribution is very useful and HIAPL and DIER will presumably explore this further as the relevant actual condition of the of the Holyman Avenue roundabout. This could include negotiated non financial elements such as provision of land and access for rationalisation of legs of the existing p
g
g DFO is addressed towards 2012. The Master Plan need not contemplate any p
y
Holyman Avenue Roundabout. i.e. providing for realignment of Cranston Parade. particular outcome.
No amendment made Further analysis is required to determine appropriate upgrades, including timing and HIAPL agrees that further analysis is required and is keen to work with DIER on this.
cost.
No amendment made Secondary Access
The Master Plan proposes an increased use of the existing secondary, access to the Tasman Highway, located to the north east and in close proximity of the Holyman Avenue Roundabout.
DIERs preference is that this secondary access is closed, with all access via Holyman Avenue and newly constructed internal roads. This will consolidate traffic at one major intersection.
It is also noted that, given the proximity of the access to the Holyman Avenue roundabout, the access is not essential to support future development, with good access available via the internal road network.
No amendment made HIAPL also noted this particular input from DIER at the 6th October meeting. Consequently the DMP now provides only that the existing secondary access and its capabilities be retained. HIAPL considers the access is essential to support future development, noting DIER offers no basis for its contention about the access available via the internal road network. HIAPL will nonetheless continue to work with DIER to agree how access into the Airport can be arranged so as to optimise Holyman Avenue's capabilities for passengers and other terminal users.
Comment
receipt
A
Pittwater Road Developments
The Master Plan identifies future development along Pittwater Road. DIER has an interest in maintaining efficiency and safety at the junction of Pittwater Road and the Tasman Highway. Any development along Pittwater Road should be accompanied by a Traffic impact Assessment, which addresses impacts at the Tasman/Pittwater intersection.
In relation to Precinct 6, located in the south‐west corner of the Tasman/Pittwater junction, access should be from Pittwater Road or an internal road. A new, direct access onto the Highway will not be supported.
HIAPL's Response
HIAPL is committed to undertaking TIAs in accordance with due process as development occurs. This approach was discussed and agreed at the meeting between DIER and HIAPL on 6th October.
No amendment made Noted. The Master Plan does not specify such access
No amendment made Noted, appreciated and understood
SUMMARY COMMENTS
The Master Plan outlines in detail future development intentions at the Airport. As much of this development is staggered over a 20 year timeframe, DIER looks forward to continuing to work with HIAPL on future access arrangements and upgrades
to continuing to work with HIAPL on future access arrangements and upgrades.
Generally, DIER's concerns relate to the potential impact of developments on the Tasman Highway that:
• Reduce efficiency of the Tasman Hwy/Holyman Avenue roundabout, (e.g. right‐in traffic has priority over east‐west Tasman Hwy traffic with potential to disrupt flow); and
• Safety and efficiency impacts through increased use of alternative access points, or new access points, from the Tasman Highway.
12 20/10/2009 DPIPWE (Rebecca Pinto)
No amendment required. Precinct 4 and 4A modified in DMP to account for the Branch's further comments The Development and Conservation Assessment Branch has assessed the draft Master It is agreed the proposal reduces the previously identified area
Plan and can provide the following comments particularly in relation to natural values following. Section 11 and other references updated.
and potential impacts identified from the document:
The proposal to reduce the area proposed for conservation, identified as Precinct 4A, will significantly reduce that area identified as having high conservation value due to the presence of threatened flora species and an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 listed threatened native vegetation community, It would be preferable that the land not be re‐zoned as proposed and remain a The preference is noted and appreciated. However, HIAPL has resolved that planning As above. The text of Section 12.3.1 has been amended accordingly to reflect green/conservation area as in the previous Master Plan. However if this is not able to does require the change. Accordingly HIAPL's response accepts the conditions DPIPWE's views and proposals and HIAPL acceptance of those
be met for planning reasons, a reduction and/or alteration to the design shape of the proposed by DPIPWE: on this aspect, the DMP now adopts a changed design shape of area proposed for re‐zoning to Commercial and Aeronautical land use, would be
the area proposed for rezoning to alter the design shape of the ongoing green zone favourably considered provided it lead to either an increase in size, or change in shape, from the narrow strip in the PDMP, in order to meet DPIPWE's objective to retain as of the narrow strip currently proposed as green/conservation land thus providing for a
much of the Poa and other flora species in as great a density as possible, which is also more acceptable area of land for long-term conservation and management.
in the area of greatest natural values according to the current survey. The amended shape of the green area provides an equal area but more substantial mass of the species when compared to the narrow strip in the PDMP.
Noted. Accordingly the DMP has been amended to accept DPIPWE's conservation The proposal to offset the loss of the Lowland Poa labillardierei Grassland and
threatened flora species from the re-zoning of Precinct 4a, by setting aside an
suggestions that arise from this conclusion, as set out below.
equivalent area of land at the northern end of the runway, for relocation of those species
(being lost) does not meet the Department's offset guidelines for natural values. It is
noted that the HIA is attempting to mitigate the impact to the conservation values from
the proposed re-zoning of Precinct 4a by offering alternate land on-site as an offset.
However, this land is not considered appropriate to offset the loss of the vegetation
community and threatened species (from Precinct 4a) because it does not contain the
same or equivalent natural values as those being lost (i.e. a different vegetation
community Lowland grassland complex, and no known listed threatened species).
Additionally, it cannot be assumed that translocation of threatened species will be
successful and that a conservation gain would be attained.
The Department is, however, supportive of HIA
s intent to protect and conserve The Department is, however, supportive of HIA's intent to protect and conserve additional green areas within the Master Plan including the identified land at the northern end of the runway and potentially linking this into identified green areas along the eastern side of the runway. If any revegetation and rehabilitation works are undertaken however, it is recommended that HIA considers a monitoring program in order for these types of works to be managed appropriately and to determine the success or otherwise of the conservation aims.
As above
Noted and appreciated. Accordingly HIAPL
Noted and appreciated. Accordingly HIAPL's response accepts the conditions s response accepts the conditions As above
proposed by DPIPWE: on this aspect, the DMP now commits that revegetation and rehabilitation works undertaken will be subject to a monitoring program in order for these types of works to be managed appropriately and to determine the success or otherwise of the conservation aims. At the stakeholder workshop on land use and the environment, representatives from Clarence noted that Airport land had been extensively farmed prior to the airport opening in 1956 and had then been levelled for development of the original airfield. The Poa and other species have regenerated since that time without active attempts to encourage them and this creates confidence that the regeneration will occur and be successful through active planting, monitoring and management
Comment
receipt
A
If re‐zoning of Precinct 4 is to occur, it is recommended that the area proposed for re‐
zoning is re‐surveyed to identify the natural values that will be impacted upon from the change in land use. The most recent survey the Department is aware of was undertaken in 2005 and is not considered current for determining the degree of impact to the listed threatened flora species and vegetation community present in the area proposed for re‐zoning. Additionally the area proposed for re‐vegetation and rehabilitation at the northern end of the runway should also be surveyed in order to determine the natural values that it currently holds in order to best manage that land in the long‐term.
HIAPL's Response
HIAPL's response accepts the conditions proposed by DPIPWE: on this aspect, the As above
DMP now commits that the area will be resurveyed. It is envisaged that this survey work will most usefully form part of the upcoming Draft Airport Environment Strategy work to be completed for submitting to the Minister by November 2010. HIAPL's response accepts the conditions proposed by DPIPWE: on this aspect, the DMP now commits that the area will be surveyed. It is envisaged that this survey work will most usefully form an early part of preparation of the upcoming Draft Ai
i
S
k b
l df
b i i
h
i i
b
As above
Comment
receipt
A
Additional material in correspondence, not representing comment requiring a response Tourism & Transport Forum TTF is a national , member‐funded CEO forum, advocating the public policy interests (Brett Gale )
of the top 200 corporations and institutions in the Australian tourism, transport, aviation, property and infrastructure sectors.
According to the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC), the annual direct and indirect contribution tourism makes to Tasmania ' s economy is estimated at $1.8 billion.' In terms of employment tourism supports 24,800 jobs or 11.1 per cent2 of all employment in Tasmania.
Tasmania' s tourism performance has been impressive for some time ‐ increasing its share of all international visitors to Australia from just 2.4 percent in 2000 to 2.9 per cent in 2008 . During this time , international visitors to Tasmania rose an impressive 37 per cent from 111,000 to 152,000.
T
Tasmania has also been able to grow international holiday visitors ‐ something i h
l b
bl t
i t
ti
l h lid
i it
thi
beyond most other States and Territories who have increasingly relied on the booming international student market to grow figures.
Domestic tourism in Australia has been flat for several years, underpinned by demographic factors and changing consumer sentiment, with Australians showing a strong preference for outbound travel. Domestic visitor nights in Australia in 2008 were around the same level as 2005 . However, between 2005 and 2008 , Tasmania was able to significantly increase interstate visitation . More recently, for the period July 2008 ‐ June 2009, domestic visitors to Tasmania increased by 907,200 or 7%, nights were up 7.86 million or 10%, and expenditure up $1.451 billion or 4%.
Southern Tasmanian Councils • The Southern Tasmania Regional Planning Project is one of three such initiatives Authority (Damian Mackey)
being undertaken in the three regions of the State. Its key objectives are to produce agreed consolidated regional land use planning strategies for the region and, subsequently, contemporary and consistent planning schemes for each local Council. The Project aims to synthesize existing local, regional and state strategies into a cohesive plan for the future development of the region. As such, it is the most significant planning initiative to have occurred in the region in at least 30 years.
• The Regional Planning Project commenced in March 2009 Regional planning
• The Regional Planning Project commenced in March 2009. Regional planning
strategies will be developed and finalised through 2010.
DIER (David Spence)
Contexts for comment:
Strategic road network
The Airport site is bounded by the Tasman Highway (DIER) to the north and Pittwater and Surf Roads (Clarence) to the east and south respectively. The main access into the Airport is from the Tasman Highway onto Holyman Avenue (HIAPL), with a secondary access and loop road off the Tasman Highway between Holyman Avenue and Pittwater Road.
The Tasman Highway is a Category 1 trunk road and part of the federal National Network between Hobart and the airport. The Highway is a Category 2 regional freight road to Sorell, and is the major passenger route connecting residential areas in Sorell and the Southern Beaches; as well as tourist access from the East Coast and Freight
Approx 500,000 tonnes per annum.
The Tasman Highway carries freight to the airport and links Hobart to Sorell and the Tasman Peninsula.
Road traffic
Passengers ‐ Tasman Highway Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Estimate for 2007
Road Link
Acton Rd to Holyman Ave
Holyman Ave to Penna Rd
AADT
18100 vehicles per day
14640 vehicles per day
MASTER PLAN ‐ Proposed terminal development
Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd (HIAPL) is Tasmania's major passenger airport, carrying approximately 1.8 million passengers during 2008. Hobart Airport is a key export point for time sensitive and high value freight.
The Hobart Airport Master Plan forecasts passenger movements of up to 4.25 million passengers by 2029. To cater for forecast growth the Master Plan identifies expansions including a revised passenger apron, upgraded international and domestic terminals and consolidation of freight and general aviation aprons.
HIAPL's Response
Comment
receipt
A
MASTER PLAN ‐ Proposed adjacent development
The Master Plan identifies 10 development precincts. Land use for the terminal precinct ‐ including current terminal and apron infrastructure ‐ is dedicated to the function of the airport. Land uses identified for the nine other precincts, mostly undeveloped at present, range from aeronautical to commercial, retail and light industrial.
Precincts currently developed or approved for development are:
• Precinct 1‐the site of the proposed Direct Factory Outlet adjacent to Holyman Ave (approved by Commonwealth); and
• Precinct 2 ‐ recently developed with hotel, fuel outlet, caravan park and child care centre. MASTER PLAN ‐ Transport task associated with passenger growth and adjacent development
Terminal Precinct
HIAPL currently estimate the terminal traffic to comprise around 7900 daily trips. This is forecast to reach approximately 18400 by the end of the planning period in 2029.
Precincts 1‐9
Trip generation arising from precinct development is dependant upon the type and rate of development. Both will be driven by broader economic factors and there is little certainty around the long range forecasts. The Master Plan suggests the possibility of between 25 000 ‐40 000 daily trips if all precincts are developed to their full potential by 2029.
MASTER PLAN ‐ Changes to the existing road network and access arrangements
Short‐term
• Tasman Hwy/Holyman Ave roundabout: Potential upgrade to cater to increased traffic volumes arising from growth in passenger movements and traffic movements associated with land side development.
• Holyman Ave: Potential need to increase capacity to cater for increased terminal and development traffic.
• Secondary access road: Retention of loop road access onto Tasman Highway.
Long term (beyond 20‐year Master Plan timeframe)
• Surf Road and Pittwater Road: Potential capacity upgrades subject to development of precincts 6, 7 and 8.
• Linking Holyman Ave to Surf Road. HIAPL's Response
0410
www.arup.com

2009 Hobart Airport Master Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

HOTEL ETOILE PEREIRE

Lodging copy_revised dates

AIRMAN`S INFORMATiON MANUAL

7851 Horan Wall Perspex Posters3.indd

summer meeting

Travel information Costa Almeria - Clima and

Lynden Pindling International Airport

IFR Mastery #2: Circling Approach vs Tailwind?

Road Closure - Oregon International Air Show

Airport Open House