News that Parramatta Council is taking on the Federal Government's aviation authorities who seem to want to restrict Parramatta's growth will test just who is controlling the shape of our cities in Australia. It seems that a number of aviation authorities connected to the federal government are developing rules that will restrict all buildings in Sydney to a maximum of 70 storeys when the rest of the world, including Melbourne and Brisbane, can easily handle 90 and even 100-storey buildings.





The rest of the world must have different rules. Just look at New York, with buildings of over 100 storeys including the 1931 Empire State Building at 103 storeys. I checked the maps to see how close to these high-rise towers the airports are. La Guardia is only six kilometres from the high-rise towers, J.F. Kennedy is 14 kilometres away and Newark 12 kilometres. Shanghai has placed all their 100-storey towers at Pudong, with the international airport also at Pudong.



Clearly the aviation bodies like Air Services Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Sydney Airport and Bankstown Airport have a role in setting some rules that support aircraft safety but a number of pilots I have spoken to believe much taller buildings are possible in Sydney, just as they are in other cities. We all need to understand the procedures that define rules for aircraft approach and departure, as well as the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) and the way radar operates across the city. But the aviation experts also need to understand that Sydney needs to grow, just like New York.







the tried and proven ANEF system. The new method would have classified vast areas around airports as unsuitable for housing that were then classified as suitable. And the actual aircraft noise would not have changed. In fact, modern aircraft are becoming less noisy, so future ANEF contours around airports are coming in not out.



Both the measurement of aircraft noise and the impact of building height on aircraft operations are examples of what appear to be well-meaning federal government rules that become formalised in state planning legislation. The impact on the shape of our cities becomes enormous, affecting the future potential of tens of thousands of new homes. When I have spoken to those involved at a federal level they stress that they are only focusing on the aviation issues and the planning issues are not of interest to them.

New York City skyscrapers are as close as six kilometres to an airport.

Maybe COAG needs to get involved in these cross-jurisdiction rules that ultimately have a big impact on the economies of our cities. Federal rules can't leave the states with big planning problems. The difficulty is that aircraft safety is a sacred area, but then if other cities in the world manage growth of high buildings as well as air safety, there must be a way forward for Australian cities.



Chris Johnson is CEO of Urban Taskforce, which represents property development interests in Australia.