Mod 2 - Helicopter Pad & Flights

I am opposed to the increase in helicopter flight numbers into this Resort.
The number were originally capped due to the location of the Resort to not only the World Heritage National Park but also Wilderness areas.
I am particularly annoyed that organisations like this apply to build infrastructure and are forced to abide by conditions that sensibly protect our natural environment. However, at a later date they apply to get what they originally wanted.
Unfortunately in the current political climate, the authorities go to water.
I am also annoyed that I waste my time making submissions and departments just do what they were always going to do.

I also believe that one of the helicopter landing pads is within an area proposed to be swapped back to the National Park at some stage. If this is the case is option should be removed.

No comment on the bee hives. Emirates can manage any risk associated with that.

I oppose the application to "increase the number of weekly helicopter movements".
1. I understand that Emirates is already contravening their permit by flying more flights per week than approved.
2. I live in Blackheath, which is under the flight path of the Emirates helicopters and the present traffic at busy times is already most intrusive. Any increase in traffic would be unacceptable.
3. I am concerned that the application does not appear to set any upper limit to the number of flights, suggesting that what is requested is an open-ended permit for as many flights as Emirates wish in any given week. This must not happen.
4. Whatever limit is set on the number of weekly flights for the future, it should be enforced.
I have no objection to the other two proposed modifications to the Concept Plan.

I support the planned move of the location of the Helipad, the modifications to the buildings as shown, and the creation of the beehives. I have no problems with the suggested increase in the number of helicopter flights.
I would suggest that there shouldn't be an upper limit to the number of flights per nominated period of time. I believe that if Helicopters arrive and depart the Resort along the flight paths indicated at the Residents Meeting, there would be no impact on Valley residents.

I am a direct neighbour of the Emirates Wolgan Valley Resort. Unlike most land holders in the Valley we are permanent residents. Most properties are weekenders.

My wife and I have lived in the Wolgan Valley since 1999 and moved there for the beauty and quietness. We have supported the resort project since the initial development phase and continue to support the resort as a positive contributor to the economic, environmental and social fabric of the Wolgan Valley.

Our main concern before the Emirates reosrt was built was the issue of helicopter transfers and the nose and invasion of privacy they posed. We were assured that there would be minimal numbers and no intrusion into our lives. This has not been the case and we have complained to the resort many times a year when helicopters have flown at altitudes of less than 100m directly over our home.

Our complaints to the resort in the past have been only when helicopters have flown low over our house when coming into or taking off from the resort and not at any time with the concept of the helicopter transfers as a whole. Our complaints have only been to the resort and not to the Regulator as we would rather have any problems dealt with as neighbours. The Resort Management have been usually been very responsive to our concerns. I would like it to be clear that we supported the original project in formal submissions to the Department of Planning and Environment knowing full well that helicopter transfers were an integral part of the project. Our comment at the time was that flights should be restricted so as not to fly over residents houses. That continues to be our position. I understand completely the need for the resort to offer such a service as part of a high quality hotel experience. Such transfers are not only necessary but also offer a great opportunity to show off the awe inspiring beauty of the Valley for guests and therefore also be a very useful promotional activity for the business if done responsibly.

With that said, I found the proposal presented in the Modification as a positive step in addressing the issue of helicopter flight paths in and out of the Valley. I have dealt with the NSW Planning process as part of my role in the local coal mining industry and recently had the experience of managing a State Significant Development for the Airly Mine Extension Project from initial concept to final approval. So I am familiar with the process. One thing that the proposed modification has the opportunity to achieve is operational certainty through well worded consent conditions. Once a project is consented to carry out a certain activity, the possibility for complaint from the public and other interest groups is very limited - unless the consent conditions are badly worded and open to interpretation. That was the case in the recent fine that One and Only received in relation to exceeding the number of helicopter movements in and out of the Valley. The conditions were open to interpretation the wrong way.

The proposed location of the new heliport, the flight path in and out along Carne Creek and the use of a single contractor are very encouraging, but open to being lost through change in contractors and Management staff at the resort. This has been part of the flight path problems we have experienced in the past.

I would like to propose some conceptual wording around consent conditions that the Department of Planning may want to consider in relation to helicopter movements that would provide the business with clarity and certainty for helicopter transfers.

On the issue of the number of flights per week, I agree with a number of other residents that the number of flights is not an issue provided the flight paths are managed to minimise impacts on residents (i.e. not flying over their properties at low altitude). I would have no issue with a removal of the restriction on the number of flights per week provided all helicopter flights relating to the resort were made to land at your new heliport. I do object to other residents using their properties as makeshift heliports for your guests. I therefore propose the following wording:

"The number of helicopter movements per week to and from the Project shall be not be limited provided that any such movements land and take off from the approved helipad within the Project area and follow an approved flight path for such purposes."

This gives the potential for multiple operators to use the helipad if Management desire, but limits where they land. If the Management insists on allowing guests (and it is their prerogative to insist they don't) to arrive via the makeshift arrangements on other land holders properties, then I would like to see the following condition of consent to maintain some level of control of those activities.

"Any helicopter movements that arrive or depart for any purpose relating to the Project and do not use the approved helipad shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) movements per week, a flight in or out counts as one movement. It is the responsibility of the applicant to manage the flight path of such flights relating to the Project so as to minimise impacts on neighbouring residents. Such flights are not to pass at an altitude less than 500m above residential properties (i.e. at least 100m above the tops of the cliffs) other than the property where the flight is to land and take off. Such flights are to follow any approved flight path wherever possible and are not to deviate from the most direct route for the purposes of sight seeing."

2. If the flight paths in the proposal are managed well, the proponent can avoid any further complaints as they would be operating within consented limits that are clear to all. The flight path clause may word as follows:

"Helicopter flights relating to the Project shall arrive and depart along a broadly south-easterly direction from the approved helipad following the alignment of the Carne Creek. Once sufficient altitude has been gained to reach the statutory minimum (insert the appropriate CASA figure here) height above the plateau surrounding the Wolgan Valley, the flight may proceed in the desired direction to its destination. All flights relating to the Project are to proceed to the southern end of Carne Creek using the most direct route to the approved helipad and no shall not fly through the valley (other than when following the alignment of Carne Creek to access the approved helipad) below the tops of the surrounding cliffs for any purpose without prior notification of surrounding land holders at least one (1) week before any such flight. Flights below the tops of the surrounding cliffs apart from those using the approved flight path are to be limited to a maximum of 2 per calendar year."

You will note I have used the terminology "relating to the Project", that has two functions. First - you may have flights that are not guest transfer related (i.e. special orders from guests for certain things, promotional activities, large event activities or personnel transfers) these need to be captured in your flight activities. Second - if you use your facilities as a base for bush fire fighting or other Emergency Services activities, these are not related to the Project and so don't count and thus avoids any potential for complaints.

I don't have a problem with the helicopters flying over the valley at altitudes well above the cliffs. There are regular flights of small aircraft and helicopters over the valley at those altitudes and they are not an issue to our privacy and amenity and are essentially in free air space anyway. It is the flights through the valley I object to (other than the RAAF of course). I also understand that some visitors may want a bit of a look around at the surrounding scenery - but Capertee Helicopters are restricted to flights well above the cliff line under their consent, so I think the Resort should be likewise restricted. I would not want joy flights to be a regular part of operations though. The test above about notifying surrounding land holders and limiting flights below the cliffs is there so that if the proponent wanted to do promotional videos or it was part of some major event at the resort, you have some flexibility to do that providing we know it is on. Then residents can make any preparations with cattle or their property arrangements to suit.

I hope this is a help with the deliberations.

I wish to object to the application to increase the number of helicopter flights from four to seventeen during major events periods.

I also question the term "major event periods" and suggest that it is deliberately vague for a purpose, and therefore ask that it be properly defined prior to any approval.

The increase in helicopter flights would seriously affect the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of not only my home and property, but that of most people living in and visiting the Wolgan Valley. I cannot agree to the infringements of these basic rights.

The Wolgan Valley has long been known for its grandeur, natural beauty , seclusion and peaceful serenity. These features are what attract inhabitants both human an animal to the area, including no doubt, the guests of the resort.

I believe an increase in this type of air traffic (helicopter) will drastically change life and lifestyle to all in the Wolgan Valley.

Thankyou.

Yours Sincerely
Andrew Henderson.
6355 1837 or 0466 306 691.

I support with option 1 in relation to the relocation of the Helicopter landing pad.
With regards to the number of flights, as there is no stated increase of flight movements I would be agreeable to increase to 8 flights per week.
With regards to the 6 bee hives, I do not oppose.

01 Nov 2017

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

RE: Wolgan Valley Resident submission on proposed changes to existing approval for Wolgan Valley resort

As residents and landowners in Wolgan Valley, we would like to submit the following questions and comments regarding the proposed changes, regarding the helipad and the increased number of helicopter movements.

Since consultation with landowners in June 2017, there has been an increase in the number of helicopter movements for 'peak' periods proposed (to 36 movements per week during 'peak' periods, rather than the originally proposed increase to 18 movements per week), and not all of our questions and concerns have been addressed in the Environmental Assessment, including:
1. The following regarding the number of helicopter movements:
- the maximum movements per day?
- the hours of movements: daylight only?
- the set flight paths: very little detail on flight paths beyond the immediate cliff line.
- the size and make of helicopters?
- purpose of movements: drop off and pick up only? Or joy flight too, around valley etc.?
- how will the numbers of movements be controlled/policed?
2. Concerns: An increase to helicopter movements, relocation of landing pad, and associated flight paths, has a direct impact on the existing level of comfort enjoyed by those living in and enjoying the Wolgan Valley (traditionally a quiet rural and bushland setting), including increased noise, vibration and disturbance by incoming and outgoing flights, affecting landholder privacy, amenity, peace and quiet, tranquillity and serenity, native and domestic animals, including stock, dogs and birds, property values, and future land use potential (including ecotourism itself).
3. Are there any other proposed helipads elsewhere in Wolgan Valley or surrounding areas (e.g. Wolgan Gap, Lidsdale, Wallerawang) by other proponents, that are planned for use by the resort?

If you require any further clarification on the questions and concerns raised above, please don't hesitate to contact us.

Dear Melissa,

Please find attached a submission to both Modifications to the Emirates Wolgan Valley Resort.

I draw to your attention the reference in the Colong Foundation submission to locating approach and departure routes in Carne Creek canyon is a mid-air collision hazard. The potential collision hazard of locating both ascent and descent paths along Carne Creek canyon must be brought to the attention of the Federal Civil Aviation authorities. The Emirates should be asked to rethink this aspect on the grounds of aviation safety, along the lines that what could go wrong, will go wrong. There is no room for helicopters to manoeuvre in a canyon and this proposal is inappropriate, especially when climatic conditions are considered, such as fog in winter.

The Foundation believes on safety grounds approach and departure must be on flight paths that come from different directions.

Yours sincerely,

Keith Muir
Director
The Colong Foundation for Wilderness Ltd
Submission attached.

Submission in opposition as per the attached pdf

Please acknowledge receipt.