In 2020, the then Christchurch Airport chief executive Malcolm Johns announced direct flights to New York from a proposed "sustainable" airport in Tarras. Locals were horrified, while throughout the nation, many people said "it will never happen".
Fast forward to 2023. The country is caught up in the upheavals of the rising cost of living, housing shortages and seriously impacted by climate change. However, the airport proposal is not only still here, but has had at least $60 million of public money spent on it. The proposed airport is planning to bring an extra 3.7 million people into Central Otago, in addition to the 3.2 million planned by Queenstown Airport Corporation in its 10-year plan.
International comparisons suggest a new airport is likely to cost more than $2 billion, money that will be borrowed and spent in the name of the owners of Christchurch International Airport Ltd (CIAL), Christchurch City ratepayers (75%) and the NZ government (25%). But who exactly wants and needs this airport, and how can it be justified?
The first response of our group, Sustainable Tarras, was to ask just this question. We did a series of professionally designed household surveys of Tarras, the Upper Clutha and Lake Hawea communities. The results? They are all opposed or strongly opposed to the airport development at levels ranging from 75% to 85% against (see our data and analysis at https://rpubs.com/rj-labs/tarrassurveyreport). Similarly, the Queenstown Lakes District Council’s Quality of Life research shows the people of both Queenstown and Wanaka are substantially opposed to unrestrained growth in visitor numbers. So, it’s not the local communities who have pushed for this development.
Surely, the tourism industry is in favour?
Well, it seems it is not.
A joint press release from Southern Lakes regional tourism organisations Destination Queenstown and Lake Wanaka Tourism on September 1 said they "do not believe the ... airport at Tarras is aligned with the new regenerative tourism approach in the Southern Lakes". And that under this proposal, the small Central Otago community would "bear the burden of increased pressure on its infrastructure ... [while] the profits would go out of region". The Central Otago District Council is also asking for restraint, submitting to the Queenstown Airport consultation process that "any conversation about further expansion of new or existing airports should be part of a wider national infrastructure conversation to achieve the best long-term outcome for Aotearoa New Zealand".
But surely a new airport has other benefits? How about the claim by CIAL that it is developing infrastructure that will be needed by the area in future? We have been told the airport would increase resilience. Unfortunately, the proposed airport is about 4km from a faultline, and separated from Wanaka, Luggate and Cromwell by five ageing, one-lane road bridges. That doesn’t even start to deal with the increased traffic volume through the Kawarau Gorge and neither Waka Kotahi nor the QLDC or CODC are planning to double lane these bridges or upgrade the gorge road to cope with the higher volume of traffic.
The population of Central Otago would be shouldering the bill for the necessary upgrade of local roads, bridges, and for the sewer and water upgrades driven by the increased demand for traffic, housing and social infrastructure.
The CIAL team has been adamant it will pay for nothing outside of its site. The Aurora network is notoriously unreliable and it looks like all the other users will be paying for the upgrade to the lines if CIAL isn’t.
So, no thanks CIAL, we can do without your "help" on this one.
And what of climate change? CIAL is quick to tell us about its (industry-awarded) environmental credentials, and it is good news that it has managed to reduce the emissions of the buildings and operations of Christchurch airport.
Unfortunately, what’s an airport without aeroplanes? Combined, the emissions from the aeroplanes landing and taking off at the airport make up over 95% of the total emissions.
We think calling its operations "climate positive" is misleading and an example of greenwash. CIAL is also quick to promote the future green credentials of the proposed airport.
Unfortunately, when it comes to aviation, the sector is far from reducing its impact on the climate. In New Zealand, aviation emissions account for 12% of our national carbon footprint, and globally, New Zealanders have the 6th highest per capita carbon footprint. Aviation is also the fastest growing source of CO2 emissions.
Recently, Air New Zealand’s chief sustainability officer Kiri Hannifin acknowledged the only way at present to reduce emissions was to fly less. It is this type of honesty we’re seeking from CIAL.
So, let’s get it straight. This airport development is not in response to demand from Central Otago. It is about removing all constraints on the number of passengers who can travel here, thus making money for CIAL. It is about encouraging CO2 emissions at a time when the planet can bear no more, and it is a waste of money on infrastructure at a time when New Zealand as a whole cannot afford to waste money.
As if this isn’t bad enough, the airport site is surrounded by outstanding natural and heritage features, such as the Bendigo Historic Reserve, and protected Department of Conservation land.
For all these reasons, and more, we are prepared to fight this proposal all the way. Sustainable Tarras knows this is not a fair fight. In contrast to CIAL, we do not have millions of dollars at our disposal for lawyers, planners and specialist advice. But that won’t stop us from trying. Please support us in making sure that this major mistake for New Zealand "will never happen".
— Marilyn Duxson, Suze Keith and Duncan Kenderdine speak on behalf of Sustainable Tarras, a group of concerned locals based in the rural community of Tarras.
