‘What about the people?’ Airport plan worries Tāhuna camp residents

Keith and Lyn Swift already have to cover their ears when an airplane flys over their home at the Tāhuna Beach Holiday Park - but soon that home in a “tight-knit” community may not even be there.

Some of the 116 long-term residents at the park may be out of a home if Nelson Airport’s proposed plan change is approved, including Keith and Lyn, who have lived there for 14 years.

In June, the Nelson City Council accepted a private plan change request from the airport which aims to alter existing designations and zoning in the Nelson Resource Management Plan.

The changes would provide the necessary planning approvals to support Nelson Airport’s future operations - including the ability to extend the airport’s main existing runway to the north within the next 10 - 15 years.

“Our runway is among the shortest in the world catering for ATR aircraft and is expected to be too short for future low-emissions aircraft. Expert advisors tell us these aircraft are likely to require longer take-off and landing facilities than we currently provide,” airport chief executive Mark Thompson said at the time.

“Our vision is to be a world-class airport where zero-emissions aircraft operate. An extended runway is a critical part of our ability to achieve that goal.”

But the holiday park’s chief executive, David Pattinson, says a longer runway and planning for different types of planes means there will be different noise contours with varying restrictions.

For the park, that would mean almost the entire 22ha would be covered by the new Airports Effects Control Overlay, while a portion of the park would also be covered by the new Air Noise Boundary which would effectively prohibit activity in that area.

“That will mean about 23 of the 116 permanent residents would have to move. It effectively creates a dead zone where we can’t do anything.”

David believes that the increased noise of aircraft flying “lower and closer” will also likely to drive holidaymakers away.

“I’m struggling to see how we can operate under these restrictions. I feel closure at some point is almost inevitable,” he says.

“The restriction on new builds also means that we will not be able to react to changes in the sector. We are looking at major infrastructure upgrades - we were wanting to put more smaller buildings in place.”

He says while they are “not opposed” to the Nelson Airport expansion, they feel that a southern expansion option has been “dismissed without adequate explanation”.

He would also like to see the airport consider the use of an Engineered Material Arresting System which allows larger planes to use smaller runways.

However, the airport has said that extending to the south would require reclaiming the seabed and would have a range of environmental effects, including on ecological values.

Submissions on the plan change closed on 10 July. Council's acting group manager of environmental management, Dennis Bush-King, says they received 469 submissions.

“In September, there is a further opportunity to make a submission, but there are some conditions on this,” he says.

“This is not an opportunity to introduce new submission points, only to respond to the points raised by others in their submissions, which means that September submissions are limited to providing support of, or opposition to, a matter contained in an original submission.”

A summary of the submissions they have received will be provided in September before the second round of submissions open. The law sets a maximum of 10 days for lodging further submissions.

A hearing date is currently set for December, but this is being reviewed and may now move to early 2024, according to Dennis.

Meanwhile, Keith says the plan has “not taken into account the human impact” and fears the house he built himself will have to go.

“What about the people? This is our village, we know everybody. They pass, and you wave out. If someone can’t start their car, we help. We are a tight-knit unit here.”

He also says part of a Nelson “icon” will be lost.

“Would they abolish the front steps of the Cathedral to make the street wider? No, because its an iconic part of the city. So is the campground.”