A push to maintain Gunnedah's airport for future use is still up in the air.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A council motion to roll-over $30,000 to fund a comprehensive inspection of the pavement, and allocate $43,000 to operational expenses lapsed at last week's meeting.
The motion was preceded by another to accept and match $198,000 in funding under the federal government's Regional Airports Program for safety and security upgrades.
NVI understands airport maintenance costs are a source of contention in council but when contacted, several councillors declined to comment on the issue.
Read also:
Councillor Owen Hasler was vocal at the meeting, once again airing his concerns about what he sees as a lack of planning for the airport's future and how it will be sustained.
"My concern is, what are we doing the airport up for? What is the objective and outcome? To me, we need a business plan, which gives us a projection of what we see the airport being used for in the future; not just doing it up to the standard of an airline," Cr Hasler said.
He said the council should not be using general funds for the facility because it was costing ratepayers, few of whom use the airport. He added that the council had a policy that its facilities must contribute at least 30 per cent towards the costs of maintaining them.
"We were going to potentially spend a lot of money to bring in a consultant to look at the airstrip and I have no doubt out of that there will be another motion for significant expenditure to bring the pavement up to standard ... these were not projected costs and were not budgeted for," Cr Hasler said.
"I've been asking for some time for staff to do an appraisal of the airport and make recommendations for what they see it being used for and how it can significantly assist in covering the expenditure we're making.
"I'm not anti-airport per say but I think if we're going to be spending a lot of ratepayers' money we need to have a plan to maximise its use."
I hope that there is genuine debate and consideration given for a position to be found or give a clear pathway forward.
- Cr Jamie Chaffey
Cr Jamie Chaffey said it was "disappointing" that money had not been allocated to carry out the pavement inspection, and the issue remains unresolved.
"Now the process would be for further information to be discussed within council and information given to the elected members and ... it would need to be re-addressed at a further ordinary council meeting," he said.
"At that time, I hope that there is genuine debate and consideration given for a position to be found or give a clear pathway forward."
A spokesperson from the council said the airport is classified as registered, which Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) is allowable. Airline Big Sky Express stopped commercial operations at the airport in late 2006.
"Whether a particular RPT service can operate from an aerodrome is dependent on physical attributes of both the aircraft used by the carrier and airport facilities. Pavement strength, runway width and length are taken into consideration, as is the type of aircraft and its tyre pressure," they said.
The spokesperson said the Civil Aviation Safety Authority was making changes so airports will be no longer be classified as registered - only certified or as an aircraft landing areas if they are not up to standard.
"Under current regulations, an Aerodrome Reporting Officer is required to undertake maintenance/safety inspections of the aerodrome twice per week. Council staff members are trained to complete these inspections," they said.
"The aero club are now the main users of the airport, however, the aerodrome is still being utilised for student flight training, as well as other private flights, business charters and medical flights.
"Following the lapse of the motion regarding the airport pavement inspection at the July ordinary meeting, further options will now be explored and presented to council at a later date."