��һ�ǿ�����

There are calls for Auckland Council to clamp down on private helicopters in residential areas after Ali Williams and Anna Mowbray were given the green light to fly choppers from their $24 million home.

Opponents were gobsmacked by the decision of an independent hearings panel to approve the application in Williams’ name to fly no more than two flights a day and 10 flights per month from the couple’s Westmere property jutting out into the Waitematā Harbour.

The panel acknowledged that numerous submitters would be disappointed with the decision, but said their interpretation of the council’s Unitary Plan and legal precedents led to the application being approved.

The applications drew 1400 submissions, of which more than 1300 were opposed.

Anna Mowbray and Ali Williams' property at Westmere. Photo / Alex Burton

Quiet Sky Waitematā, a group set up to oppose private helicopters in residential Auckland, said the council now had a clear understanding of public opposition and should take this into account when reviewing the Unitary Plan.

Julie Stout, who chairs Urban Auckland, called the decision deeply disturbing and potentially opening the door for many other helicopters in residential areas.

Councillor Mike Lee, whose Waitemata and Gulf ward includes the Mowbray-Williams property and helipads in nearby Herne Bay, said he planned another attempt to make helipads in residential areas a prohibited activity.

In March last year, councillors narrowly voted down by 10 votes to eight a notice of motion by Lee at the planning committee to make private helipads a prohibited activity.

“The situation is now uncertain. Certainty is needed, and prohibited activity will ensure that certainty,” said Lee.

North Shore councillor Chris Darby was “massively disappointed” with the decision, saying it was time to have a serious rewrite of the rulebook.

The current rules, he said, were written in a way that a convincing lawyer could drive a bus through.

“I totally disagree with the notion that you can fly a helicopter into a residential area and land it,” Darby said.

Chair of Urban Auckland, Julie Stout, said the decision potentially opens the door for other helipads.

At the public hearings for the resource consent application in May, the lawyer for the applicants, Chris Simmons, argued that helicopter take-offs and landings were inherently a residential activity and permitted as long as they complied with noise rules in the Unitary Plan.

This was at odds with the council’s planner, Adonica Giborees, who recommended that the application be declined as the private use of helicopters in residential areas was a “non-complying activity” and could set a precedent for future applications.

In a 41-page decision, the panel said a notable feature of the application was whether the application should be treated as a ‘non-complying’ or the lesser ‘restricted discretionary’ activity.

The commissioners considered Simmons’ argument to be the ”soundest”, saying that using a helicopter to access a property is permitted.

“People undertake a myriad of activities on their properties which are a consequence of personal choice… but this does not make them non-complying. For example, backyard BBQs and entertaining, recreational sports and games, boat and car cleaning,” the panel said.

Quiet Sky spokeswoman Elena Keith: "It's a gross inequity".

Quiet Sky spokeswoman Elena Keith said the applicant’s lawyer argued a helicopter coming and going from a residential house was the same as driving a car or riding a bike, and should be considered a restricted discretionary activity, not a non-complying activity.

She said the three commissioners took this interpretation and agreed with it, disregarding the impact on hundreds of birds foraging below the helipad and the wider impacts on the community, and approving the use of a helicopter that exceeds the allowable noise limits.

“It’s a gross inequity and sets a worrying precedent for the rest of Auckland,” Keith said.

She said Quiet Sky is digesting the decision before deciding on an appeal to the Environment Court.

Council planning and resource consent general manager John Duguid said the council was reviewing the implications of the panel’s interpretation and could not comment at this stage on making changes to the Unitary Plan.

The independent hearings panel comprised the chairman Kitt Littlejohn, David Hill, and Dr Hilke Giles.