A majority (75 per cent) of 602 residents who were surveyed in October and November 2021 supported the further development of Warnervale Airport – once they were given some detail on what the concept was.
“The overall level of support for the airport development increased after respondents were made aware of the various benefits that it could have to the local community,” Woolcott Research and Engagement said in a report to the Council.
“While support was reasonably strong initially, it increased to 75 per cent up from 64 per cent for the initial read, while those not supporting the idea decreased slightly from 13 per cent initially, to 10 per cent after all of the information was provided,” Woolcott said.
The concept included ideas such as a “regular passenger transport”, live-in campus style commercial pilot training, and a parallel taxiway.
Respondents rated creation of employment opportunities and local business opportunities as the most important objectives of the proposal.
“Without knowing the full details, many respondents felt that a development of this nature would result in employment and training opportunities for local residents,” Woolcott said.
“Again, without knowing full details, the main concern related to the noise from aircraft using the airport (26 per cent).
“A concern over the potential environmental impact of the development, and the impact on road traffic were also raised (11 per cent and 9 per cent respectively).
“However, more than a quarter of respondents had no potential concerns (26 per cent).
The concept was first explained in the following statement: “Central Coast Council is currently investigating the potential redevelopment of the existing Central Coast Airport at Warnervale.
“The development would NOT create a larger regional airport and the runway will not be extended (as had been proposed in previous years).
“Instead, the focus would be on utilising the existing airport land adjacent to the runway to attract aviation related businesses and to generate local employment.
“I will provide further details of the current plan to you, but before I do that I would like to know your initial feelings about the general idea.
“Please let me know how strongly you support this development idea on a scale from 0-10, where 0 means ‘not at all supportive’ and 10 means ‘fully supportive’.”
Respondents were then given more details.
“As has been indicated, one of the key aims of the development would be to attract a range of aviation related businesses and have them located together on the land adjacent to the existing runway,” they were told.
“The idea is to attract aircraft operators such as fixed wing and helicopter charter operators, airborne mapping operators, aircraft manufacturing and maintenance operations.
“In addition, there would be education and training operators that could include live-in campus style commercial pilot training, aircraft simulators, and technician training.
“There could also be regular passenger transport and the development would also hope to attract new aviation technologies in the future.
Does knowing this make you any more or less supportive of the idea?”
The more detailed description resulted in a more positive response to the development idea – with 58 per cent indicating that they were more supportive after hearing this.
Support was highest amongst respondents from East Gosford and The Entrance (64 per cent and 62 per cent respectively).
Just under one in 10 (8 per cent) indicated that they were less supportive of the idea due to this information.
Respondents were then told the airport was technically classified as an Aircraft Landing Area which prevents regular scheduled passenger flights from being able to use it.
“Council would also like to explore the possibility of having this classification changed so that a regular service could be included at the airport.
“This could involve minimal changes to the frequency of use and in the size of aircraft that use the airport, but the physical limitations of the runway (even when upgraded) would restrict a major change taking place.
“Does knowing this make you any more or less supportive of the idea?”
Just over half of all respondents indicated that information relating to a regular flight service resulted in a more positive response to the development idea (52per cent) with support highest among male respondents (57 per cent).
Just over one in ten (13 per cent) indicated that they were less supportive of the idea due to this information.
Respondents were told the plan would also involve upgrades to the existing runway which could include an increase of runway width from 10m to 23m and the provision of a parallel taxiway.
“As I mentioned earlier the length of the runway will not be extended beyond its current length of 1196m.
“So it will remain suitable for smaller fixed wing aircraft, helicopters and light and ultra-light aircraft.
“Does knowing this make you any more or less supportive of the idea?”
Under half of all respondents indicated that information relating to the runway length resulted in a more positive response to the development idea (44 per cent).
Less than one in 10 (9 per cent) indicated that they were less supportive of the idea due to this information.
Support was highest amongst respondents in the Wyong Ward (50 per cent).
About 60 per cent of all respondents chose to leave an additional comment with most responses positive in nature but there were some concerns expressed about Council’s ability to handle the development.
A sample size of 603 was chosen because it is known to provide results that are 95per cent statistically reliable, Woolcott said.
In April 2021, Interim Administrator Dick Persson approved the development of a Masterplan and a plan of management for the airport with a runway length of 1,200 metres with no extension.
Both plans were to be publicly exhibited once completed.
As part of that, Council had to prepare a draft plan showing the environmental and proposed conservation land to be protected as well as the proposed employment land that will be subdivided from the conservation land.
Mr Persson also authorised the CEO to: negotiate agreements to better utilise the airport; to hold discussions with the aviation industry and affected landowners and to explore inclusion of four and 10 Warren Rd and and 140 Sparks Rd into the masterplan.
He also agreed to immediately suspend the development of the Warnervale conservation agreement and any agreement with the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust to permanently protect the Porters Creek Wetland until the masterplan, the plan of management and a subdivision plan was registered that subdivides the Wetland and surrounding E2 land from the employment land in Warnervale.
The State Government voted to repeal the Warnervale Airport Restrictions Act in October 2020, a week or so before the Minister for Local Government suspended councillors as part of the fallout from the financial crisis and installed administrator Dick Persson who appointed Rik Hart acting CEO.
The Minister appointed Hart as administrator number three to replace Persson when he finished in May 2021.
Council-under-administration was due to discuss the survey at its February 8 meeting and to decide its next move with Warnervale Airport; talks with the aviation industry and a final business case.
Hart was expected to authorise staff to go ahead with a request for information from the general aviation industry and other interested parties and the business case to determine the Central Coast Airport’s future demand.
The staff report to the meeting said the resolution would allow Council staff to methodically plan and implement a balanced and harmonised approach that equally contemplates the important surrounding ecology within Central Coast Airport lands.
“The development of a masterplan for Central Coast Airport has the potential to provide an integrated aviation, manufacturing, research, and education precinct that encompasses the airport and the surrounding lands,” the Council said.
Merilyn Vale
602 does not make survey on such a diversive issue! This seems a number to appease and to show the right statistical data. As I don’t recall be asked participate? (I would be be under a southern flight path) Also there was previously thunderous complaints when there additional sky diving planes dropping recreational sky divers to land in Pioneer Diary area.