Houses, the airport, and noise

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33777, 25 February 1975, Page 16

Houses, the airport, and noise

In the last 20 years Christchurch has grown rapidly to the north and wesA Land has been subdivided within the area originally set aside as a buffer zone around the airport. Houses have been built close to the area within which householders would, by anyone’s estimation, find the noise of aircraft a serious nuisance and, perhaps, even hazardous to their health. Not all residents in the north-west suburbs would have foreseen the effects of jet aircraft, but when people chose to live on the fashionable north-west perimeter of town they must have been aware that they would be living close to an airport. The airport management has shown consideration for those who took the risk of living on that side of the city and they have allowed engines to be tested at night — the reason for most complaints — only when such tests have been unavoidable. If satisfying the complaints of those who, in recent years, bought houses in the vicinity of the airport is going to interfere with the running of the airport to the disadvantage of others in the city, the complaints will have to be discounted in favour of a well-established industry. Restricting development within a buffer zone is the only way to avoid unreasonable limitations on the running of the airport. Certain kinds of development are not " sensitive ” to aircraft noise. The land within the buffer zone must be reserved for these rather than for housing. Even meeting the pressing demand for sections in Christchurch does not justify relaxing controls on the use of land around the airport imposed under existing planning schemes. Both developers and those who have allowed departures from these schemes have served Christchurch ill. The local bodies which drew up the plans must firmly decline to allow land to be subdivided for housing. They must also oppose applications to the Town and Country Planning Appeal Board for departures from their schemes. For the local bodies merely to warn house builders that they might be building closer to the airport than is wise is far from enough. Restrictions on the use of the airports and the insulation of houses against sound are both expensive undertakings. Razing houses or shifting airports is even more so Christchurch has had a chance to avoid having to resort to such costly remedies. Pressure to breach good planning limits has been too successful in recent years and must be stoutlv resisted.