Helicopter landing site riles locals in this prized coastal area
His group raised concerns about noise, but the tribunal heard expert evidence that the sound produced by the proposed helicopter would be within the legally allowed levels.
Queenscliff resident and former councillor David Kenwood, who opposed the application in tribunal hearings, said it was deeply worrying that the distinctive areas and landscape designation had not been considered.
'The great worry of this is the precedent it sets particularly for this area,' he said. 'It's virtually impossible to stop another helicopter operation.'
The Borough of Queenscliffe has previously reported nearly 200 bird species have been seen in Swan Bay and that its intertidal mudflats are home to about 10,000 migratory birds each summer.
Ramsey's property is located within a rural conservation zone, and it is also covered by a significant landscape overlay and environmental significance overlay. But the tribunal found these were also not relevant to the proposed use in the helicopter landing site application.
The Age made multiple attempts to seek a response from Ramsey, including through his lawyers, but he could not be reached for comment.
Kenwood said the area beside Lakers Cutting was serene and inappropriate for a helicopter.
'It's probably the quietest place in the borough.'
The zoning of the land and its designation as a distinctive area and landscape should have been enough to protect it from uses including helicopter flights, he said.
'You think you've got safeguards, but once you get into VCAT they're not existent.'
The tribunal determined the Bellarine Peninsula Statement of Planning Policy was not incorporated or referred to expressly in the planning scheme.
The statement of planning policy sets out a 50-year vision for the area to protect its 'outstanding landscapes and coastal landforms', living Indigenous cultural heritage and history and important infrastructure.
The policy lists more than a dozen public entities that are responsible for the declared area, including the Borough of Queenscliffe, Parks Victoria and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. However, VCAT is not among them.
Monash University urban planning and design senior lecturer Liz Taylor said the Queenscliffe council had initially refused a permit for the landing site, but later supported the application. Third-party objectors then spoke out against the application at the tribunal hearings.
Taylor said the state government declared the Bellarine Peninsula a distinctive area and landscape several years ago, which meant it was part of Victoria's planning provisions.
However, she said the state government needed to make a planning scheme amendment to formally incorporate the declaration into the Queenscliffe planning scheme.
A Victorian government spokeswoman said work was under way to incorporate the Bellarine Peninsula Statement of Planning Policy through an amendment to relevant planning schemes. However, it said local councils must consider the policy when making relevant decisions within the declared area.
The tribunal granted the permit to Ramsey subject to several conditions, including that flight movements not exceed 16 per calendar month. The helicopter movements can only occur between 7am and 7pm.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
6 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
WFH culture in Victoria ‘took hold from COVID lockdowns'
Victoria's long periods of COVID lockdowns created a culture of working from home that is not as entrenched in other parts of the country, Western Australia's premier said yesterday as other state leaders distanced themselves from Jacinta Allan's plans to legislate a right to hybrid work. Employers have criticised the Allan government's promise to enshrine remote working arrangements into Victorian law as productivity-sapping and anti-business, and all other mainland states on Tuesday said they had no plans to follow suit.
Herald Sun
9 hours ago
- Herald Sun
Jacinta Allan work from home law: All your questions answered
Premier Jacinta Allan sparked a whole weekend of conversation when she announced plans to enshrine the right to work from home into law. Under the Australian-first legislation, Victorian workers who can reasonably do their job from home would have the right to do so at least two days a week. However, fuming business figures and puzzled legal experts were quick to point out that the plan was not so clean cut. More than a third of Australian workers – including 60 per cent of professionals – regularly work from home. But will most of us actually be legally protected to work from home two days a week or is this just a political manoeuvre to win votes? Under the proposal, who would be legally protected to work from home two days a week? Workers in both the private and public sector who can reasonably work from home. If you can work from home now, you would likely have the right to work from home two days per week. When would this actually come into place? The Premier has pledged to introduce legislation to parliament next year, prior to the November state election. However, she has not given an exact time frame. This sounds great! But is this actually work? Legally, maybe not. Victoria, like other states, handed its powers over private sector workplace regulation to the federal jurisdiction decades ago. Under s109 of the Constitution, if a state law is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, the Commonwealth law prevails and the state law is invalid. The Fair Work Act also overrides state laws that regulate conditions of employment. State laws enshrining work-from-home two days a week could therefore face a series of legal challenges and even be considered unconstitutional in the event the laws attempt to legislate in territory ruled by the Commonwealth. My EBA doesn't expire for years and doesn't include a clause outlining two days a week from home. Will I still be able to WFH two days a week? Generally EBAs (Enterprise Bargaining Agreement) are under the Fair Work Act, which can override state laws. If your EBA does not specifically outline that you are able to work from home two days per week, the right will not be automatically afforded to you. What if my employer refuses? We're going to need to wait on more detail to understand what the outcomes could be. However, it could depend on a number of circumstances. Private sector businesses are generally covered by the Fair Work Act, which overrides state employment laws. This will need to be tested in the High Court. Jacinta Allan has flagged that the Equal Opportunity Act – which protects workers from discrimination and harassment – could be used to cover some workers. What are legal experts saying? Legal experts have raised serious concerns about whether this will actually pass court challenges. University of Melbourne's John Howe, who specialises in labour relations, says there was a potential constitutional hurdle. 'There'll obviously be an implementation challenge for companies that are operating across states that have an inconsistent approach,' he said. 'There's the question of what Victoria does to enforce it … what apparatuses is Victoria going to use to try and monitor compliance? 'There'll be people who are opposed to it, employers who are opposed to it who bring the challenge.' Professor Howe, however, says there could be circumstances where employers who dismiss or disregard the new legislation are taken to court on discrimination grounds. 'There might be an argument that if you were declining to provide the (option to) work from home that you might be discriminating against workers who have legitimate reasons,' he said. 'There certainly might be areas where you could claim not recognising the right would be discriminatory.' Why has the government announced this? It's popular! Working from home part of the week is the norm post Covid and working families, particularly working mums, have structured their lives around the flexibility of three days in the office, two at home. It also forces the opposition into a corner. Support it, well they're giving Labor a tick of approval while turning on their business voter base. Oppose it and they risk losing the demographic they desperately need – women. What has the Premier said? Premier Jacinta Allan says the plan is all about working families, giving parents more time to be with their kids while also allowing them to save money by skipping the commute to the office. 'My Labor government will make working from home a right, not a request,' Ms Allan said. 'We will not stand by while workers, especially women, single mums, carers, get punished for needing balance in their lives.' She, however, has also picked a fight with private sector bosses, accusing them of refusing to allow employees to work from home to maintain 'power'. 'This isn't about whether the work gets done, it gets done. How have business leaders responded? Australian Industry Group head Tim Piper called the plan 'pure political theatre designed to wedge the state opposition'. 'The proposal is a serious government overreach that undermines business autonomy and further jeopardises economic confidence in the state,' he said. Australian Restaurant and Cafe Association chief executive Wes Lambert argued the proposal would only divide workplaces. 'This announcement today simply defies reality and only demonstrates the lack of understanding the current government has on how our economy works,' he said. Victorian Chamber of Commerce chief executive Paul Guerra warned it could force more businesses to flee interstate. 'If Victoria moves away from the legislated national system, businesses will move interstate and jobs will be lost,' he said. What has the Opposition said? State Opposition Leader Brad Battin knows it's not popular to restrict work from home arrangements. He, like all Australians, watched this play out on the national stage at the May election when his then federal counterpart, Peter Dutton, was forced to backflip on his policy to force public servants back into the office full time. He knows he's been cornered and is therefore being cautious. 'We support measures that help Victorians enjoy a better work-life balance, and will review any legislation closely, to ensure it supports flexibility, productivity, and personal choice,' he said on Saturday.
Sky News AU
10 hours ago
- Sky News AU
NT Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro tears into coroner who presented Kumanjayi Walker inquest findings in Yuendumu in front of an Indigenous activist banner
Northern Territory Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro says the coroner has questions to answer about the way she delivered her findings into the death of Kumanjayi Walker, an Indigenous man shot dead by police. But as the Government continued its criticism of Coroner Elisabeth Armitage, a senior barrister said the attacks were 'personal' and an attempt to distract from the gravity of her findings. Last week Sky News revealed former police officer Zachary Rolfe, who shot Walker dead at Yuendumu in November 2019, had made a formal complaint to the NT Judicial Commission accusing Ms Armitage of bias. Part of his complaint relates to the coroner delivering her findings at the PAW Media building in Yuendumu in front of a banner belonging to an activist group that had previously called for Mr Rolfe to be speared in an act of customary lore. Asked on Mix FM radio if she thought it was appropriate for the coroner to deliver her findings in front of the banner, Mrs Finocchiaro said: 'Of course not. Now, if you give the benefit of the doubt it was put up while she was speaking so the coroner might not have been aware that it had happened - certainly her staff would have been there and would have seen it as did the rest of the universe. 'There's valid questions to be raised, obviously Mr Rolfe is availing himself of that opportunity and all positions come with a level of accountability and the coroner's no exception to that.' But barrister Phillip Boulten SC, who represented the North Australia Aboriginal Justice Agency at the inquest, told Sky News the decision did not indicate bias on the part of the coroner. 'The banner shouldn't have been there but the coroner didn't put it there,' he said. 'The coroner had her spot marked out, she went to the spot that had been marked out but by the time she got there someone had put it there. You can't blame the coroner for that and it certainly doesn't demonstrate bias on her part, that someone put a banner up.' Mr Boulten slammed the Finocchiaro Government for its attacks on Ms Armitage since she delivered her final report into Walker's death last month, which said Mr Rolfe was a racist and that should couldn't rule out the possibility racism played a part in Walker's death. 'The attacks against this coroner are personal, they are driven by a very basic opposition to her findings,' Mr Boulten said. 'It is uncomfortable for the government to hear a judicial officer call out systemic, racist attitudes in the police force in the Northern Territory.' Mrs Finocchiaro said the government maintained confidence in the coroner but had concerns about the length and cost of some of her inquiries. The inquest into Mr Walker's death, which took almost three years, has cost three NT Government departments more than $8 million. The Government has since flagged possible changes to the Coroner's Act. 'There's a way in which sometimes the coroner chooses to do things certainly grates a lot of people the wrong way and I'm sure it has people who love it as well, so it's one of those things but accountability is what's really important,' Mrs Finocchiaro said. 'We don't believe these things should be dragged on as long as they are being, we don't believe they should be costing as much as they are, so it's something we've got to take a look at and the Attorney-General is leading that work.' Minister for the Prevention of Family and Domestic Robyn Cahill also criticised the coroner last week, describing her final report into the deaths of four Aboriginal women killed in domestic violence incidents as 'uninspiring' and 'underwhelming'. Mr Boulten said the Government's criticism of the coroner was short-sighted and reactionary. 'It should be time for a government to be considering what they can do (to respond to her findings), rather than to attack the coroner,' he said.
