The court has rejected an application by the land’s owner, Remarkables Park Ltd (RPL), to re-hear the court’s decision 12 months ago to redesignate the land for the airport’s expansion.
The 16ha of land in question, known as Lot 6, runs along the airport’s southern boundary. The airport has sought the land for almost a decade in order to expand its facilities, including a general aviation precinct, and to build a taxiway parallel to the runway.
RPL also appealed last year’s Environment Court decision in the High Court. But in December, a week before it was scheduled to be heard, RPL applied for an adjournment and sought leave to present further evidence relating to the release last August of the airport’s proposed master plan.
Both those applications were declined, and last month the High Court rejected the appeal.
In last week’s decision, Environment Court Judge Jane Borthwick found the options for expanding the airport in the master plan were "not material" to the court’s decision 12 months ago.
"Put simply, the court is not engaged with a fact-finding exercise about which of the airport layouts in the options document might ultimately find favour."
Queenstown Airport (QAC) chief executive Colin Keel said it was "very pleased" with the decision.
The next stage was for the airport to buy the land from RPL.
"We have been in discussions with RPL over the past year, but unfortunately no agreement has been reached to date.
"Now that we have received final approval from the courts, we will proceed with acquiring the designated land under the Public Works Act."
RPL chief executive Alastair Porter said it would not appeal the decision, which meant the issue would move into the Public Works Act process.
"The first part of that is to determine whether the purchase is fair and reasonable.
"We have always been of the view that QAC buying the land by compulsory acquisition is not fair, given that QAC entered into contractual agreements with Remarkables Park to swap that land in the late 1990s and early 2000s."
Even if the airport could establish it could buy the land compulsorily, the question of the purchase price would have to be addressed, Mr Porter said.
That would occur "either by agreement between RPL and QAC or further legal proceedings".
There was nothing to stop the parties reaching agreement outside of court, and RPL had always been open to that.
"We’re very happy to sit down with the QAC and offer them the land at a value that is fair and reasonable to us. That’s been our position for a long time."
