"Airport Land Use: New Zealand court backs city airport protection"

Monday, May 17, 2004

Court backs city airport protection
NEW ZEALAND - THE CHRISTCHURCH PRESS


Strict controls on housing developments near Christchurch International
Airport have been upheld by the Environment Court.

Land developers had objected to proposed Christchurch City Plan
restrictions against noise-sensitive activities, such as close-knit
housing. Still-vacant land near the airport has come under pressure from
urban expansion.

The City Plan boundaries were drawn to protect the airport from future
complaints that could lead to a night-time curfew on its 24-hour
activities.

Business developments could still occur in such semi-rural areas if they
had the right zoning or resource consents.

"It doesn't preclude other types of development in the future," Ivan
Thomson, team leader of Christchurch City Council area development and
planning, said yesterday.

"But the airport is one of the most vital pieces of infrastructure in
the region, in fact in the country. If it had a curfew imposed, it could
be disastrous for the regional economy.

"This is one of the toughest restrictions in the world, really, to keep
housing away from the airport. Hopefully, this decision will put to bed
-- at least for some time -- the uncertainty about where housing can go
near the airport.

"It will be good for the airport and for the council."

In his decision, Judge Jeff Smith said it was "a fact that a greater
number of houses between the lines (proposed contours) would lead to an
increased number of people highly annoyed by airport traffic".

He said the council had tried to reach a reasonable balance between
permitting development in the area and safeguarding the airport as a
physical resource.

The stricter line did not "foreclose future options" for either
landowners or the airport, he said, and preserved the land's potential
for future generations.

Land inside the contour was still available for a range of permitted
uses, including limited residential subdivision and development of one
house to a 4ha section or 20ha section, depending on the zone.

The court's decision was an interim one because other matters, such as
whether travellers' accommodation was a noise-sensitive use, had yet to
be sorted out.

Clearwater Resort and the airport had "reached an accommodation" over
their future expansion in that direction, the decision said.

The judge noted that a 2002 survey of Christchurch residents which
included questions about positive noise -- noise people enjoyed --
showed that aircraft noise came third after bird and animal life and the
sounds of children, and ahead of sources such as the wind, the ocean,
and miscellaneous neighbourhood sounds.

But it was clear that a "complaint level" could exist well below the
Christchurch contour restrictions. Experiences near Sydney and Vancouver
international airports had shown that.

The court accepted there could be some benefit from the airport "future
proofing" its operation. That benefit had local, regional, and national
significance.


 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dcfp/dcboard.php


*****************************************