‘Vital’ community voice missing from airport talks

A community group is lamenting its exclusion from discussions as the hearing for Nelson Airport’s plans to extend its runway nears its conclusion.

Over the past several weeks, the airport has been in discussions with the Nelson Golf Club and the Tāhuna Beach Holiday Park who would be significantly affected by the runway extension.

However, according to the Tāhunanui Business and Citizens Association, the suburb’s residents are missing from the discussion.

Nelson City Council has taken a back seat to the airport’s proposed plan change due to the conflicting natures of its positions as a 50 per cent airport shareholder and regulatory authority.

But association chair Jacinda Stevenson says the council’s position has resulted in a lack of “vital” community voice into the process.

“I just wonder, who is the advocate for the community? Is it not supposed to be the council?”

In the absence of the council, Jacinda points to the association’s 30 years of advocacy for Tāhunanui and says she would have liked to be included in the discussions.

“I feel like there’s not a willingness to talk, and we would be open to that discussion moving forward.”

New development restrictions would be imposed on some properties falling within the airport’s air noise contours under the runway extension proposal.

Depending on the location, new builds and renovated spaces may need to gain a resource consent and must be acoustically insulated and ventilated or, in higher-noise environments, new developments would be prohibited.

“We just feel really under-invested in as a community, and I’m just really concerned if these overlays come into effect with the airport… who’s going to want to invest here?” Jacinda says. “It gives the airport an unusual amount of authority over a neighbourhood.”

Nelson Airport is planning to implement a fully-funded acoustic mitigation programme for existing properties affected by a certain level of aircraft noise.

Jacinda adds that the association isn’t against the development of the airport and believes a “win-win” could be found, but thought the community engagement from the airport was not at the level that she would have expected.

However, Nelson Airport says in its closing submissions that it undertook “comprehensive” community engagement by requesting full public notification of the plan change, establishing a website with FAQ about the proposal, hosting a “well-attended” drop-in session, circulating leaflets to those potentially affected, and advertising in free local newspapers. More than 500 submissions were made on the plan change.

Nelson Airport declined to comment on the involvement of the association in further discussions because the plan change was still before the commissioners.

The airport’s application would implement the necessary planning framework to go ahead with its sought runway extension.

A longer runway would be safer and would better cater for future growth and low-emission aircraft. A longer runway is expected to be needed in 10-15 years.

The airport was directed to engage with the golf club and holiday park by the commissioners overseeing the hearing, at the airport’s suggestion.

The golf club would lose much of its land for the runway under the proposal while long-term residents in a village at the campground face an uncertain future due a combination of new restrictions sought by the airport and a consenting hiccup. The discussions were hoped to provide an opportunity to reach a more palatable outcome for all parties.

In its closing submissions, Nelson Airport said the golf club now supports the proposal on the basis that its 18-hole championship course can be reconfigured onto an adjacent peninsula.

The airport remains willing to continue working with the holiday park on how it might advance the camp’s proposed redevelopment in a way which reconciles the effects of aircraft noise on residents and reverse sensitivity effects.