PO Box 846

Horsham, 3402
31st July, 2016

The Mayor, Councillors and Citizens

Horsham Rural City Council
Dear Mayor and Councillors

Re:
DISASSOCIATION BY THE UNDERSIGNED PARTIES FROM THE RECENTLY RELEASED
HORSHAM INTEGRATED TRANSPORT STRATEGY AND THE HORSHAM AERODROME MASTER PLAN
__________________________________________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Horsham Aerodrome
100% of local stakeholders engaged by Council in the consultation process do not support the draft
Horsham Aerodrome Master Plan as submitted by AECOM. Should the plan as submitted by
AECOM be adopted the capacity of the aerodrome to support the community, particularly in times
of emergency will be compromised. Future growth and revenue will also be stunted. The
consultants were tasked with constructing a 50+ year plan and have failed to do so (20 year plan
supplied). Assertions in the Plan do not stand critical review.
Concerns are raised that the company contracted to do this review is also the company contracted
by VicRoads to do much of the Option D Horsham bypass work, which has major impacts on the
Horsham Aerodrome. We do not understand how Council would expect that AECOM would
produce a plan that would jeopardise another larger AECOM plan generating substantial revenue
from VicRoads.
Horsham Integrated Transport Strategy (HITS)
As HITS community stakeholders we express our concerns that due diligence and good governance
have not occurred in the compilation of the HITS draft plan, now released to the public for comment.
The Planning Panel made clear recommendations in relation to additional work required by VicRoads
which has not been carried out. This included more accurate costing of Option D and inclusion of
considerations of Option 5A (or similar).
Any reader of the now published preliminary draft Horsham By-pass report is entitled to form the
view that all of the stakeholders involved in the process agree with and support a Western Highway
bypass of Horsham on the alignment of VicRoads preferred Option D. This impression is clearly
conveyed in the verbage on pages 4 and 5 of the document and the document clearly recommends
Option D. This is not our position and we now need to convey that to the community.
It is now understood that 6.2 kilometres of bridging as opposed to a culvert road is required to cross
the flood plain east of Horsham. At a cost in the order of one third of a billion dollars for bridging
alone and combined with substantial costs to attempt to mitigate aerodrome issues created by
Option D, if approved, seem to doom this option from ever proceeding.
Options in an alignment close to Option 5A have been independently produced as a result of
VicRoads failure to do so. On the face of what is presented they look good. The material has only
been provided for cursory attention by the HITS group.

We express our concerns at the very poor level of governance, the scattergun approach and the
unachievable time frames that prevent meaningful discussion with our community.
We the undersigned community representatives wish it known that we do not support the
recommendations made in relation to the Horsham Aerodrome Master Plan, nor do we agree with
the recommendations contained the draft Horsham Integrated Transport Strategy.
SITUATION
The Planning Panel considering the Horsham By-pass after hearing numerous submissions from a
wide section of the local community expressed significant concerns regarding the VicRoads driven
Option D.
In its final recommendations the Panel tasked VicRoads with reviewing the impact of Option D on:
our aerodrome
the flood plain crossing to the east including structures, design and costing
the Riding for Disabled facilities.
Horsham Rural City Council were tasked to review the most appropriate by-pass alignment by
immediately commencing the following work:
develop an Integrated Transport Plan for Horsham
produce a master plan for Horsham Aerodrome (as a result if the impact of Option D).
(see pages ii to iii Horsham Planning Scheme Amendment C72 23/12/2015)

Stakeholder concerns regarding the Horsham Regional Aerodrome

100% of local stakeholders engaged by Council in the consultation process to not support the draft
Horsham Aerodrome Master Plan as submitted by AECOM.
A VicRoads representative on the Aerodrome Master Plan committee forcefully made it clear to all
of us that VicRoads Option D would be implemented and that we should work around that position.
100% of the local stakeholders who were engaged in the process reject this view as it was not the
Planning Panels mandate and that VicRoads were tasked to consider other alignments including
Option 5A or a variation.
Horsham City Council engaged AECOM to conduct the work on Horsham Aerodrome.
AECOM is the company engaged by VicRoads to do much of the Horsham By-pass work that led to
Option D. Horsham City Council is aware of this position.
We ask How is it possible that Horsham Rural City Council would expect AECOM to recommend
against a directly related body of work that generated AECOM significant revenue and where all
parties including AECOM were directly and overtly pressured by VicRoads to find for Option D.
Concerned that significant safety, operational and other impact issues raised by the stakeholder
group were being ignored, stakeholder John Robinson on behalf of the group, emailed Council on
the 11th of July 2016 requesting how these issues were to be addressed. Council simply forwarded
this email to AECOM (with no response).
In the same email the stakeholder group requested the opportunity to truth the plan before
(formal) release to Council and the wider public. Again this was forwarded by Council to AECOM
2

(with no response). This position was strongly put at the Horsham Integrated Transport Strategy
Meeting on the 29th of July, 2016 again to no avail.
Relevant concerns:
AECOM were tasked with producing a plan looking forward to the next 50+ years
o AECOM produced a 20 year plan.
AECOM were tasked with producing a plan that catered for expansion of both runways to
1800 metres to Code 3 standard. This was agreed by all.
o A Code 3 runway and precision approach rules require a 2% obstacle free gradient
from the runway end. Note: across Australia Non Directional Navigation Beacons
such as that installed at Horsham are being decommissioned as a result of GPS
navigation. Instrument precision approach technology is now common in the USA
across many small airports.
o AECOM suggest that the north south runway can be extended to 1230 metres within
the existing road constraints but cite an obstacle free gradient of 3.33%. This
gradient only caters for non-precision instrument approaches and would not allow
optimum use of the GPS navigation system which allows for aircraft to operate and
land in almost all weather conditions.
o This is an important consideration for us with our reliance on Air Ambulance and
other emergency service operations as well as making Horsham Aerodrome
commercially more attractive and productive for a variety of aviation operations.
o In a 50 year plan as stipulated this is a must do.
Should we be surprised that AECOM have consistently attempted to push extension of the north
south runway to the north (ie away from the Option D by-pass). This is away from the
previously identified direction for extension.
The strengths of Horsham Aerodrome are well documented in the Horsham Airport Business
Plan (2010) at page 23. The land is flat and the present site is well drained.
The need to extend Runway 17/35 to 1800 metres is identified (see page 28).
The need to extend 17/35 to the south across Gatehouse Road by approximately 800 metres
is identified (see page 28).
The need to set the width of 17/35 at an absolute minimum of 150 metres and to widen the
reserve to 172 metres is also identified (see pages 28 29).
The Horsham Aerodrome Business Plan 2010 was adopted by Horsham Rural City Council on
the 3rd of May 2010. This Plan was compiled by Malcolm Styles of Engineering Styles
Management. The Draft Master Plan does not appear to give much consideration to the
Council adopted position which is clearly stated in the Business plan.

AECOM attempt to convince us that any extension should be on the east west runway
(08/26) despite acknowledging that the predominant wind (year round) is southerly.

It seems to us that adoption of the AECOM recommendations will leave Horsham Rural City
Council and ratepayers with a most expensive project to extend the north south runway to the
north to meet future needs.
AECOM would have us planning extension of the north south runway to the north and into a
significant long and wide depression.
A cursory tour of the site suggests that it would be beyond the financial capacity of Horsham
Rural City Council to source the vast volume of fill required to level the site and to address
the significant and unresolved drainage, road traffic and other amenity issues created.

It seems unlikely to us that the competing priorities of any federal Government would
provide any guarantee or relief for these expensive works. Horsham region would simply
miss out on development.

The Planning Panel Report (page 49) under Conclusions states:

Planning that precludes an expansion of 17-35 runway is short sighted; it is therefore
necessary to ensure that a northerly extension is practical and not cost-prohibitive.
The amendment and Option D should only proceed following the preparation of a Master
Plan for the aerodrome that confirms that it is possible to extend the north-south runway in
a cost-effective manner.
On page 14 of the AECOM report it is suggested that Option D was found by VicRoads to be unlikely
to impact on the operation and future growth of Horsham Aerodrome. It talks only of modifications
to access roads being needed. It seems to us that AECOM found it convenient to simply accept this
statement and seek workarounds which will no doubt be at our expense and to the significant
detriment to our community.
Given the direct impact on the viability of the Horsham Integrated Transport Strategy (Option D)
we do not understand why the aerodrome issue has not been resolved in a timely manner so that
stakeholders on the HITS team can make relevant recommendations.
Horsham Integrated Transport Strategy (HITS)
Any reader of the now published preliminary draft report is entitled to the view that all of the
stakeholders involved in the process agree with and support a Western Highway bypass of
Horsham on the alignment of VicRoads preferred Option D. This impression is clearly conveyed in
the verbage on pages 4 and 5 of the document.
As HITS stakeholders we express our concerns that due diligence and good governance have not
occurred in the compilation of the HITS draft plan, now released to the public for comment.
At the time of the VicRoads release of the original proposal documents they were heavily criticised
for allowing only 28 days for comment. Council have allowed less notice for our own community
response and it seems that there is minimised enthusiasm to engage with our community other than
throwing out the bait to see if there are any bites.
In the absence of the work requested of VicRoads we have made our own enquiries of the
Catchment Management Authority regarding appropriate design standard; length of the flood plain
crossing; the required floodway structures; and a more accurate estimate of costs.
We now understand that the CMA will not accept a culvert based crossing of the flood
plain.
We understand that a pylon bridge arrangement is to be mandated to manage flood
waters and that this extends for some 6.2 kilometres.
Indicative costs are in the order of one third of a billion dollars for the bridge alone on
todays costs.
We suggest that together with the Aerodrome earthworks costs if the runway is extended to the
north that the project would never proceed on the alignment of Option D.

If this is the case then the planning that we may do now and the resultant land acquisitions will need
to be overturned at some future time and the whole process, including community disruption, will
start again, but with many more obstacles associated with population increase.
A pivotal concern for us is that whilst Option D has had significant attention over an extended
period other proposed options have had minimal consideration. Releasing the material to the
community in such a disjointed and incomplete way prejudices the outcome and denies the
community the opportunity to make an informed choice.
We are further concerned following the meeting on the 29th of this month that there appears to be a
drive to protect unoccupied developer land and that there seems to be a view that it is OK to
impact on currently occupied land wherein homes are existing and occupied.
CONCLUSIONS
The work conducted following the Planning Panel recommendations has not met basic governance
standards and the community are thereby deprived of the ability to make an informed decision.
The undersigned are community stakeholders who were either invited because of particular
knowledge and expertise or were elected as volunteers by the community. Our community expect
us to represent them in the pursuit of an outcome that serves the needs of all.
We cannot and will not be associated with recommendations and processes that are not
supported by the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
The Horsham Aerodrome is a significant lifeline for our community and supports our emergency
needs and also supports the growth and development of our community. Council has an approved
Plan for its future development. Option D fatally impacts on the present and future operation of
the Aerodrome.
The planning by VicRoads to cross the widest part of the flood plain to the east of Horsham is flawed
in that on cost alone it is never likely to be funded. This means when the time comes to by-pass
Horsham a new process will have to commence and significant and far more costly disruption will
occur for our community (our children or grandchildren). Option D also fails to meet VicRoads
prime objective of being the most efficient transport option with a very low Cost Benefit Ratio.
In plans developed away from VicRoads we see significant opportunities for a ring road that will
truly take the truck traffic out of the centre of our city, connect our other arterials and industrial
areas as well as providing strategic bridging across the river that will allow further housing and
other development for the good of the wider community. The community needs to be fully
informed of this work and needs to have a say.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend the following:
The AECOM Horsham Aerodrome Master Plan (2016 2036) be rejected as a fatally
compromised document that does not comply with what was asked for (50 year plan).
The Horsham Aerodrome Plan (as updated and adopted by Council in 2010) retain its current
status as Councils current adopted position.
Horsham Integrated Transport Strategy be informed by the existing 2010 Horsham
Aerodrome Plan.
5

Horsham Rural City Councillors (alone) engage with the authors of this document on
governance issues and to seek a possible way forward to restore integrity in the process and
to pave the way for a meaningful community decision on the Integrated Transport Strategy.
The Council revise the timeframes to allow meaningful community consultation, following
the provision of meaningful documentation and maps.

Yours sincerely,

John Robinson BM FBIA MAIES

Commercial Pilot (fixed wing)
Glider pilot, Glider tug pilot
Founder WestVic Helicopter Rescue Service Inc.
Founder of two CFA Aviation Fire Support Units
CFA Aircraft Officer and Airbase Manager
Former Operations Manager and OIC Victoria Police Air Wing
Former member Horsham, Warrnambool and Essendon Airport advisory groups
For:
Russell Peucker
Farmer and Community leader
Horsham Rural City Council Co-citizen of the year (current)
Richard May. B.AppSci.
Private pilot licence 40 years
Jeff Moore.
Commercial Pilot 50 years
Chief Pilot of a Charter Company for over 40 years,
Fire spotting pilot for 40 years
Robert Kelm
Farmer and community leader
Tony Brand
Commercial Pilot
Owner and Chief Engineer Horsham Aviation Services
Hugh Brownlee
Commercial Pilot
Head of Operations (Chief Flying Instructor)
Command Instrument Rating with 50 years flying experience
Selwyn Ellis
Private pilot 35 years, 1200 hours
Member of CASA Regional Airspace and Procedures Advisory Committee for Victoria
Aircraft builder and owner
Experienced tug pilot, tug master at competitions, 2500 launches
Victorian Soaring Association Airfields and Airspace Officer
6