Billionaire in chopper wrangle
Consent for helipad use ‘too much’ says neighbour
AQueenstown builder has appealed a decision to let a neighbouring billionaire fly his helicopter to and from his home up to 120 times a year. Tim Roberts was granted consent late last year to establish and operate from a helipad at his Malaghans Rd home in the rural general zone, to give him faster and easier access to two remote properties he owns in the Wakatipu — one at Halfway Bay, the other at Walter Peak.
Neighbour Allister Saville, who with wife Diane opposed the application, appealed that to the Environment Court just before Christmas.
Saville said he expected Roberts would gain consent “but I thought it probably wouldn’t have been to the full extent [of what was proposed]. “It’s too much, really.”
He alleged Roberts was still using the helipad, which he was not permitted to do while the matter was under appeal, and contacted the Queenstown Lakes District Council about that yesterday.
Roberts was put on final notice by the council in September for using the helipad without consent.
Council communications manager Naell Crosby-Roe said the latest allegation was being investigated.
Should it be proven, in “most instances” the applicant would be advised they were not permitted to carry out the activity.
If they did not cease, an abatement notice would be issued.
Roberts declined to comment yesterday due to the appeal.
An independent director of Mineral Resources, Roberts has an estimated wealth of about $2 billion.
He is part of a West Australian family that set up and sold the construction firm Multiplex.
Commissioners Rachel Dimery and Wendy Baker granted consent for Roberts to use a Bell 429 Global Ranger helicopter to undertake up to two flights a day between 8am and 8pm.
A flight included a take-off and landing.
Opposing submitters were largely concerned about adverse noise effects, but the commissioners said the area was already subject to “relatively high levels of traffic noise” and noise associated with rural activities and machinery.
“We consider that at the level at which this activity is being proposed . . . these effects do not substantially change the character of the area.”
The commissioners said the “disruption of a conversation up to four times a day for substantially less than a minute” was considered an amenity effect “anticipated in a rural environment”.
“This can equally happen when permitted activities occur, such as starting up farm machinery, riding a motorbike, helicopter activity associated with farming . . . or shooting practice.
“We also find that the proposal will enhance the social and economic wellbeing of the property owner . . . as it will enable him to conduct his business affairs in a more efficient manner.”