Helipad site in jeopardy after meeting

Press, 9 May 1984, Page 1

Helipad site in jeopardy after meeting

Helicopter flights from the New Brighton foreshore will cease if the Christchurch City Council adopts a recommendation made by its parks and recreation committee last evening. The committee voted not to renew the lease of Garden City Heliflights, which has flown scenic helicopter flights on a trial basis since January. The helipad on the foreshore has been the subject of much debate from nearby residents and the council has received three petitions, one for the flights and two against, and numerous letters. Submissions were heard from the residents of the area and the helicopter owners at the committee’s meeting. The committee heard almost three hours of submissions, debate and some-times-impassioned comments of objectors, one of whom walked out of the meeting, asserting that objectors were not being allowed to state their view. The helipad’s trial period was extended at the last council meeting until May 21, the date of the next council meeting. That meeting will make a final decision on the future of the helicopter flights. Under the terms of the existing licence the flights are allowed only between 9 a.m. and 8.30 p.m., Monday to Saturday, and 11 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. on Sunday. The

flight paths and safety aspects are controlled by the Civil Aviation Division of the Ministry of Transport. Sound recordings by council staff, taken on two occasions, in Waitaki Street and Marine Parade, showed a take-off maximum noise level of 91 decibels and a landing maximum of 89.5 decibels. The noise limit set for activities on the Estuary under the council’s District Scheme is 85 decibels. The helicopter had exceeded that limit for 0.5 seconds during the Marine Parade test, the committee was told. Mr John Curry, one of the partners in Garden City Heliflights, said the New Brighton coast was the area most people taking flights wanted to see. “We set up the helipad as a service to local people and as a tourist attraction,” he said. The helicopter flew five routes to Akaroa, Banks Peninsula, Lyttelton, Sumner and the city. The flights over the city were varied along five routes. The helicopter would pass over a particular house only once or twice in an hour, he said. Noise readings taken before the helipad began were recorded at 60 decibels. This compared with traffic noise of 75 decibels and had seemed acceptable, Mr Curry said.

The helipad could be sited at Christchurch Airport but the frequency of flights would be the same. A larger and faster helicqpter would be used, Mr Curry said. He did not believe that the helipad had disturbed the sandhills or any wildlife. The sand around the pad had been stabilised by fencing and no birds had been struck by the machine. The helicopter’s take-offs and landings were made in a seaward direction and the flights done at 1200 ft, rather than the regulation 1000 ft. The company had tried to overcome objections by varying flight paths, Mr Curry said. Mr D. Hewison, of 251 Marine Parade, described the helicopter as a “flying chainsaw.” Mr Hewison, who is chairman of the New Brighton Action Committee, said, that as a shift worker he had to contend with the helicopter while trying to sleep. The helicopter flew over his house every ID minutes, he said. Mr and Mrs R. Gibbons, of 144 Lonsdale Street, said the helicopter had destroyed their enjoyment of,, the beach. y

It had caused considerable disruption and distress by flying over houses with “horrifying regularity.” The thumping noise of the helicopter’s blades penetrated inside their house. Mr C. Wornall, of 38 Rodney Street, said he spent all of his day at home as an invalid. The helicopter flew over his house up to 10 times an hour, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The flights were more frequent on a Saturday. The council had disregarded the wishes and needs of the residents. Peace and quiet were characteristics sought by the residents, they had now been destroyed by the helicopter, he said. Mr A. P. Truscott, of 343 Marine Parade, said he objected to a commercial concern making money in a recreational area. The invasion of privacy by the helicopter was not acceptable, he said. Miss Y. J. Laurier, of 117 Oram Avenue, said the flights had ruined the end of her summer. She did not want to contemplate another summer “under the helicopter.” Mr W. D. Jarman, representing the South Brighton Residents’ Association, said an injunction had been lodged in the High Court because the association be-

lieved the helipad contravened zoning regulations. He had received complaints from residents in Wainoni and the Southshore who had been disturbed by the helicopter’s noise. The council’s own engineers had noise levels up to 90 decibels, he said. Dr Alan Wilkinson, of the Values Party and an owner of a South Brighton property, told the meeting that the party supported the South Brighton Residents’ Association. “We anticipate that this hearing itself will be ruled invalid by the High Court and that the City Council will be required to reconsider the matter under the Town and Country Planning Act, ... permitting appeals to a planning tribunal by interested parties.” The party did not believe the council had acted lawfully in allowing a trial period, he said. A number of residents criticised the way the council had gone about granting the trial period. Cr John Burn, the chairman of the meeting, limited discussion to issues relating to the continuation of the helipad. In answer to a query from objectors, he said a great number of letters had been received complaining about the way

the helipad had begun. Time allowed only submissions on the future of the helipad, he said. Mr Jarman left the meeting at this stage, saying he could not stay if the chairman intended to “strangle the truth.” Mr O. Innes, of the North New Brighton Community Council, said he had raised noise complaints about the helicopter at a public meeting in New Brighton. Only one person had supported the complaints. Too many people were trying to get their hands on the New Brighton foreshore, said Mrs D. Waters, of 127 Rockinghorse Road. The area was not a holiday resort. It was a residential area and residents should be given consideration. The natural state of the sand hills should not be sacrificed to attracting tourists, she said. Mr W. Cook, of the New Brighton Community Centre, said two petitions had been started, one for and one against the helipad. The petitions had been available in the central business area of New Brighton. The number of people signing the petitions were 157 against the helicopter and 446 for. Of these 7,0 of those against lived injure

New Brighton Community Committee area as did 110 of those in favour. Other reasons given why the helipad should not continue were danger of accidents, depreciation of property values, dust problems, low flying, compatibility with the council’s district scheme, and the use of air space above the estuary for reasons other than rescue. Councillors asked questions of the objectors and the helicopter operators before discussing their recommendation. Cr Burn said he still supported the helipad but Cr Alex Clark and Cr Mollie Clark said the depth of feeling expressed by those who had attended the meeting had to be recognised. The flights had had a big impact on their lives, Cr Alex Clark said. The committee voted not to continue the lease and to suggest to the helicopter owners that the most suitable place for such a business was Christchurch Airport. Mr Jarman said after the meeting that the injunction would not be withdrawn until the committee’s decision had been confirmed by the council. Mr Curry said he had no comment to make until after council’s decision.