Airservices review ‘failed’ to address Brisbane noise pollution, say locals

“Airservices has failed Brisbane communities again. It’s hard to give an action plan a pass when it only answers half the questions,” said BFPCA spokesperson Matt Loveday.

“Package 4 puts forward options for arrivals, but where is the relief for people living under departure paths? Where is the meaningful action on night-time noise?”

Following a review by air traffic management consultants Trax International, Airservices opened its latest proposal for public comment. Earlier this year, Airservices released its Brisbane Noise Action Plan, which it says would reduce noise impacts from the airport for around 140,000 people, and give respite to a further 482,000.

“The options we are presenting provide a real opportunity for noise improvements for some of the communities we have most frequently engaged with throughout the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane,” said Donna Marshall, Airservices Australia’s head of Noise Action Plan for Brisbane Program Delivery.

The BFPCA, which has been advocating for Airservices to improve noise pollution outcomes for Brisbane inner-city suburbs since the opening of Brisbane Airport’s second runway, argued that the new proposals fail to address the impact on local schools and night-time departures. 

“Tingalpa and Gumdale State Schools are two examples,” Loveday said. “…And despite six years of planning, there is still no meaningful action for night-time departures, including flights like Emirates EK431 waking Brisbane communities at 1.55 am, sometimes reportedly carrying fewer than 40 passengers.”

VIEW ALL

>

A key aspect of the new proposal is the introduction of multiple flight path options that can be alternated, meaning communities are not being consistently targeted with aircraft noise.

“New runway-aligned communities, who are subject to both arrival and departure operations, could receive respite from arrivals in between peak traffic periods on an alternating basis with legacy runway communities,” Marshall said.

“Communities to the north and west of the airport, who are overflown by aircraft arriving to the new runway, could also experience lower noise levels from the increased flightpath altitudes and smoother descent profiles. Some of these communities could also benefit from respite options.”

Loveday said that alternating traffic is not a sufficient solution for residents concerned about noise pollution.

“Having no arrivals over one community today and twice as many tomorrow doesn’t reduce the total number of aircraft. It simply redistributes them,” he said.

“Where’s the independent health evidence that one day of reduced noise compensates for the increased concentration the following day?”

BFPCA also argues that the current proposal options fail to adequately address long-term solutions as the airport grows in its capacity, and also fail to address structural IT issues within Brisbane’s air traffic control system. 

“Six years, four packages, and hundreds of pages of reports, yet Brisbane communities are still waiting for meaningful relief,” Loveday said.

“We are not telling Airservices or the Government how to do their jobs. We are demanding that they do them. Brisbane needs meaningful noise relief, a socially responsible airport, and a Federal Government that holds Airservices Australia and Brisbane Airport Corporation to account.

“The Noise Action Plan may be ending, but the responsibility to deliver meaningful noise relief is not.”