More than 20,000 flights a year could be taking place at Queenstown Airport by 2037, if growth predictions are accurate, the Queenstown Lakes District Council's strategy committee was told yesterday.
The committee was given the information as part of a report on the airport corporation's private plan change, which seeks to amend existing air noise boundaries and allow flights to land at the airport between 10pm and midnight.
QLDC senior policy analyst Karen Page said Airbiz, an international specialist aviation consultancy company, had assessed the airport's operations and growth predictions.
Passenger numbers for scheduled aircraft are predicted to grow from 700,640 in the year ending June 30, 2008 to 2,348,139 by June 30, 2037.
"This would result in an increase in annual aircraft movements for scheduled flights from 8350 in 2008, to in excess of 20,000 flights in 2037.
"If the airport is to provide for this growth, then the existing noise boundaries will have to be extended," Ms Page said.
The airport was operating near the limits of noise levels permitted by the air noise boundary, and the proposed plan change would see an extension of that boundary and the outer control boundary; the addition of a sound insulation boundary and a new night-time noise boundary.
It would also introduce new objectives, policies and rules to the district plan to protect the airport against reverse sensitivity effects.
Ms Page said the council had three options with regard to the plan change.
It could not reject it because the plan change met the tests under Resource Management Act and it "would not be appropriate" to treat the plan change as a resource consent, as it involved a change to the airport noise contours and planning provisions.
The council could accept it, meaning the applicant would incur the full cost of the plan change, including any council time spent processing the application.
Accepting a plan change did not mean the council agreed with the contents of the plan change request.
"Provided that the plan change passes the grounds for rejection, the council must accept a private plan change to allow the public to consider its merits," Ms Page said.
The council could adopt it in full, which would normally mean the council would absorb the full cost of the plan change; however, Queenstown Airport Corporation had agreed to incur the cost of the plan change through a private stakeholders' agreement.
By adopting the plan change, the council would be acknowledging it was something the council might initiate in the future to enable airport growth.
However, two main issues were apparent: a lack of any proposed aircraft noise controls in the plan change, and a lack of any provisions around compensation in the plan change.
The final option was for the council to adopt the plan change in part, which would give it the chance to "exclude" the later flight arrivals.
"My recommendation is that strategy [committee] recommend to full council that the plan change is adopted in part, excluding the night-time flight provisions; that the provisions relating to night-time flying are accepted; and that a report to the strategy committee be received . . . regarding a submission recommendation on [the plan change].
"Obviously, because the existing operating hours go to 10pm . . . our recommendation would be to leave those potential hours open for discussion . . . as opposed to the council adopting it in full at this stage."
Cr John R. Wilson said more work needed to be done on the noise boundaries, particularly with the potential for late flights landing in winter.
"These planes will be flying in on a winter's night . . . Sound goes a long, long way. Big planes coming in later at night creates a disturbance."
Cr John Mann said he had been approached by a ratepayer concerned about "24-hour landings".
However, if the plan change were successful, planes could land until midnight, but no planes would be permitted to leave.
"There's not going to be takeoffs after 10pm . . . There's nowhere to fly to."
Cr Cath Gilmour said the airport was "very strong" on protecting its own interests but "not very strong on protecting the community's interests".
"If we're adopting . . . we're saying that we adopt and therefore recommend the approach thus far taken by QAC. It's putting a lot of trust and good faith in a commercial operation."
The committee voted to accept the recommendation as put, which will be discussed by the full council next week.
Cr Gilmour voted against the recommendations.
