DOCSLIB.ORG

Osborne Evidence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Osborne Evidence IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of Proposed Plan Change 19 (Frankton Flats Special Zone B) to the Queenstown Lakes District Plan. STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF GREGORY JOHN OSBORNE INTRODUCTION 1. My full name is Gregory John Osborne. I am a Director of Osborne Hay (South) Limited, a Planning and Resource Management Consultancy practice based in Auckland. 2. I have the qualification of Bachelor of Town Planning obtained from Auckland University in 1979 and I have been a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute since 1984. 3. I have worked as a planner in local government and private practice since 1979 and during that period I have had extensive experience in district and regional plan preparation and the preparation and processing of resource consent applications and notices of requirement for designations. 4. In recent years I have also developed significant experience in resource management and planning processes related to the District Plan controls on aircraft noise and related land use controls on activities sensitive to aircraft noise in the vicinity of airports. 5. In particular, I facilitated the mediated settlement of a range of appeals on behalf of Manukau City Council in relation to the provisions of the Manukau District Plan relating to Auckland International Airport. That work involved drafting district plan rules which ultimately formed the basis of the Environment Court consent order. 1 6. Subsequently, I have provided planning advice to Auckland International Airport Limited over a number of years and I gave evidence to the Environment Court in the case Independent News Auckland Limited and Auckland International Airport Limited v Manukau City Council1 in which the key issue was reverse sensitivity to aircraft noise. I continue to provide regular training sessions on behalf of Auckland International Airport Limited for Manukau City Council staff on the issue of aircraft noise and reverse sensitivity effects that arise in relation to activities which are sensitive to that noise. 7. I also provided planning advice to Papakura District Council and its Hearing Commissioners in relation to Plan Change 6 following its notification in 2001 and prepared but never presented evidence on behalf of the Council in relation to subsequent appeals to the Environment Court. I was, however, involved on behalf of the Council in the negotiations which led to the draft Consent Order between a number of parties including the Council, Ardmore Airport Limited and the Ardmore Residents Action Group. I recently provided evidence to both Papakura District Council and Auckland Regional Council hearings panels considering a series of changes to the District Plan and the Regional Policy Statement on the issue of reverse sensitivity to aircraft noise relating to new urban development in the Takanini area. 8. I provided planning advice to Rotorua District Council in relation to Plan Change 32 (Rotorua Airport Noise and Land Use Controls) between late 2003 and late 2007 and was directly involved in the preparation of the Plan Change dealing with issues of controlling aircraft noise and controlling land use activities which might give rise to reverse sensitivity effects at Rotorua Airport. I also provided evidence to the Environment Court on that matter although ultimately that case too was resolved by consent order. 9. I have also provided planning advice and a Section 42A report to the Timaru District Council in relation to submissions on a Plan Change (Plan Change 6) dealing with very similar issues at Timaru Airport (Richard Pearse Airport). 1 Decision no: A103/03 2 10. I am currently providing planning advice to Queenstown Lakes District Council in respect of the draft plan change that Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited is preparing and in relation to a proposed Plan Change at Wanaka Airport that I am preparing for the Council. 11. I am familiar with Queenstown Airport and its surrounds as well as the location of the land to which Plan Change 19 applies. 12. I have read and agree to comply with the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses outlined in the Environment Court's Consolidated Practice Note 2006. While this practise note relates to the preparation of evidence for the Environment Court, I can confirm that I have complied with it in preparing this evidence. I confirm that my evidence is within my area of expertise except where I state I am relying on what I have been told by another person. I also confirm that I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from my expressed opinions. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 13. I appear at the request of the Commissioners to respond to the legal submissions which were made and the evidence which was given at the hearing of submissions on Plan Change 19 (PC 19) in relation to the issue of aircraft noise resulting from the use and development of Queenstown Airport and the potential reverse sensitivity effects that might arise from the development of the land which is subject to PC19. 14. Specifically, the submissions and evidence which I will respond to is: a) Legal submissions made by James Gardner-Hopkins and evidence given by Eric Morgan on behalf of Air New Zealand Limited; b) Legal submissions made by Amanda Dewar and evidence given by Alison Noble on behalf of Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited (QAC); c) Evidence given by Michael Foster on behalf of Shotover Park Limited and Remarkables Park Limited; 3 d) Evidence given by Warwick Goldsmith on behalf of Five Mile Holdings Limited (In Receivership); and e) Legal submissions made by Vanessa Walker on behalf of Jacks Point Limited and Plethora Investments Limited. 15. My evidence is structured as follows: a) A review of the key relevant points made in legal submissions and evidence given and my response to each of those points; b) My conclusions in terms of recommended amendments to PC 19. LEGAL SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (ANZL). 16. James Gardner-Hopkins made legal submissions on behalf of ANZL. The key points he made in those submissions were: a) PC 19 should contain controls on Activities Sensitive to Aircraft Noise (ASAN) outside the Outer Control Boundary (OCB); b) That reverse sensitivity effects outside the OCB should be addressed by amending the Objectives, Policies, Environmental Results Anticipated and Rules of PC19; c) In particular, the rules of PC19 should be amended to require that the Outline Development Plan required throughout the PC19 area should include a further matter for discretion relating to reverse sensitivity to aircraft noise even outside the OCB; d) The rules should also be amended to require that all ASAN outside the OCB must be subject to a “no-complaints covenant” or otherwise be a non-complying activity; e) ANZL opposition to the inclusion of references to controls on the effects of noise from the Airport in Objective 14 and new policy 14.2; and f) A new definition for “Activity Sensitive to Aircraft Noise” should be included in PC19. 17. I will deal with each of these matters in turn. Firstly, I do not support the imposition of controls on Activities Sensitive to Aircraft Noise (ASAN) outside the Outer Control Boundary 4 (OCB). It is not an approach that has been used at any other airport in New Zealand to my knowledge and it is not an approach which is supported by the New Zealand Standard for Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning NZS 6805:1992 (the Standard). 18. Mr Gardner– Hopkins acknowledges in his submissions that “ANZL would not usually seek to extend controls on ASANs outside airport noise contours. However, it will do so where there is good reason to believe that the noise contours might change or where the circumstances make it appropriate to seek such controls.” Mr Gardner-Hopkins does not expand on why he considers the noise contours “might change” although it is assumed this is a reference to the fact that the new aircraft noise contours proposed by QAC in its public consultation documents have not yet been notified as part of a plan change process and might be altered as part of that process. This is an issue I will address later when I come to evaluate Mr Foster’s evidence, but suffice it to say that if the future aircraft contours really are in such doubt, then it would be far better, in my opinion, to delay the implementation of PC19 until those contours are settled than to establish a fundamentally unsound precedent in terms of land use control around Queenstown Airport by introducing rules relating to controlling ASAN outside the OCB. 19. I am also unconvinced by the other reasons advanced by Mr Gardner-Hopkins for taking such an unusual approach to controlling land use in the case of Queenstown Airport. He states that the PC19 land is “...within proximity to the Airport and will be affected by Airport noise” and that “...the OCB contour is no “magic” cut off point. Even people who live outside of the OCB can (and do) complain about the Airport noise”. These observations would apply to all airports around New Zealand where the Standard has been the basis of land use controls in District Plans to control reverse sensitivity effects. They are not unique to Queenstown Airport at all. Of course, people do notice aircraft noise outside the OCB (Ldn 55dBA) contour and doubtless they also complain about it on occasion. However, Mr Gardner-Hopkins either ignores or is unaware of the acoustic research into community responses to aircraft noise that lies behind the Standard’s recommendations in relation to 5 positioning the OCB.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statement of Intent 2020-2022
    Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd Statement of Intent 2020-2022 30 June 2019 Contents Introduction 3 About Us 3 Situational Overview 5 Forward Planning 7 Strategic Direction 8 Key Strategic Projects 9 Priorities and Performance Metrics 10 Financial Forecast FY2019-2022 14 Shareholder Interaction and Corporate Governance 16 Services Provided to QLDC 18 Wanaka Guiding Principles 18 Strategic Alliance with AIAL 19 Audit 19 Accounting Policies 19 Corporate Directory 20 Abbreviations 21 Introduction As a Council-Controlled Trading Organisation, Queenstown Airport Corporation (QAC) is required under Section 64(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 to prepare a Statement of Intent (SOI) for Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) before the start of each financial year. This is an annual process with a three-year time horizon. The SOI sets out the strategic priorities that QAC intends to achieve or contribute to over the period as well as its activities and budget for the next financial year. The SOI takes shareholder comments into consideration and provides priorities and performance metrics for organisational accountability. About Us Queenstown Airport Corporation QAC is considered an ‘Airport Authority’ under the Airport Authorities Act 1966 and is required under this legislation to operate and manage its airports as commercial undertakings, including carrying out improvements where necessary. QAC also has an obligation as a CCTO to support QLDC in providing good quality local infrastructure that is appropriate to meet current and anticipated future needs and circumstances. QAC was incorporated in 1988 and since then has been responsible for the management and development of Queenstown Airport, striving to deliver an operationally safe and efficient airport with world-class facilities and an outstanding customer experience that reflects the best of the region.
    [Show full text]
  • AIRPORT MASTER PLANNING GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE February 2017
    AIRPORT MASTER PLANNING GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE February 2017 ABOUT THE NEW ZEALAND AIRPORTS ASSOCIATION 2 FOREWORD 3 PART A: AIRPORT MASTER PLAN GUIDE 5 1 INTRODUCTION 6 2 IMPORTANCE OF AIRPORTS 7 3 PURPOSE OF AIRPORT MASTER PLANNING 9 4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 13 5 BASIC PLANNING PROCESS 15 6 REGULATORY AND POLICY CONTEXT 20 7 CRITICAL AIRPORT PLANNING PARAMETERS 27 8 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT 46 9 KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN 50 10 CONCLUSION 56 PART B: AIRPORT MASTER PLAN TEMPLATE 57 1 INTRODUCTION 58 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 59 C O N T E S 3 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 64 AIRPORT MASTER PLANNING GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE New Zealand Airports Association | February 2017 ABOUT THE NZ AIRPORTS ASSOCIATION The New Zealand Airports Association (NZ Airports) is the national industry voice for airports in New Zealand. It is a not-for-profit organisation whose members operate 37 airports that span the country and enable the essential air transport links between each region of New Zealand and between New Zealand and the world. NZ Airports purpose is to: Facilitate co-operation, mutual assistance, information exchange and educational opportunities for Members Promote and advise Members on legislation, regulation and associated matters Provide timely information and analysis of all New Zealand and relevant international aviation developments and issues Provide a forum for discussion and decision on matters affecting the ownership and operation of airports and the aviation industry Disseminate advice in relation to the operation and maintenance of airport facilities Act as an advocate for airports and safe efficient aviation. Airport members1 range in size from a few thousand to 17 million passengers per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Submissions for Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited (Further Submitter 31054) Dated: 6 August 2020
    Before the Queenstown Lakes District Council In the Matter of the Resource Management Act 1991 And In the Matter of the Queenstown Lakes Proposed District Plan Hearing Stream 18 (Rural Visitor Zone) Legal Submissions for Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited (Further Submitter 31054) Dated: 6 August 2020 Counsel | Rebecca Wolt | Barrister Email | [email protected] Phone | +64 21 244 2950 1 Introduction 1. These legal submissions are filed on behalf of Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited (QAC) in respect of its further submission on the Queenstown Lakes Proposed District Plan (PDP) addressing an original submission (OS31021) by Corbridge Estates Limited Partnership (Corbridge) to rezone approximately 322 ha of land located at 707 Wanaka-Luggate Highway Limited from Rural Zone to Rural Visitor Zone (RVA). 2. The Corbridge land is proximate to Wanaka Airport (Airport), under the Airport’s main flight path, and partly within the Airport’s Operative Outer Control Boundary (OCB). 3. QAC is responsible for the management and planning of Wanaka Airport pursuant to a long-term lease by Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC). 4. QAC opposes the Corbridge submission for reverse sensitivity and amenity reasons and seeks retention of the land’s Rural zoning. Legal Framework 5. Ms Scott for QLDC has addressed the statutory framework within which decisions on submissions and further submissions must be made.1 Ms Scott’s submissions are generally accepted as correct and adopted here. 6. The issue of jurisdictional scope arises for the Corbridge submission, and Ms Scott’s submissions on that2 will be addressed and elaborated upon shortly. QAC 7. QAC was incorporated in 1988 and is responsible for operating Queenstown Airport.
    [Show full text]
  • Aeronautical Conditions of Use
    Aeronautical Conditions of Use 1 Wanaka Airport Aeronautical Conditions of Use Version 2.0 1.0 Contents 2.0 Conditions of Use ....................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Using our Facilities and Services ................................................................................ 3 4.0 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 4 5.0 Excluded Services ...................................................................................................... 4 6.0 Information we require before you use our facilities and services ............................... 5 7.0 Charges...................................................................................................................... 5 8.0 GST ............................................................................................................................ 6 9.0 Late Payments and Non-Payment .............................................................................. 6 10.0 Information Generally ................................................................................................. 7 11.0 Airport Closed or Services Unavailable....................................................................... 7 12.0 Ground Handling ........................................................................................................ 8 13.0 Moving Aircraft ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Orders Made to Identify Poplar (5339) and Fir (3021) Reduced Heights Necessary to Meet 1997 OLS By
    BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Decision No. A \ \~ 12009 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) and an application for enforcement orders under Section 316 of the Act BETWEEN ROTORUA REGIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED (ENV-2009-AKL-304) Applicant GEOFFREY WAYNE FISCHER Respondent Hearing: At Rotorua on 1ih, 18th September 2009 Court: Environment Judge J A Smith Environment Commissioner PA Catchpole Enviromnent Commissioner CE Manning Appearances: Mr V Rive and Mr L U Hinchey for Rotorua Regional Airport Limited Mr G W Fischer for himself Date ofDecision: 9th November 2009 DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT A: Orders as sought refused. B: Orders made to identify Poplar (5339) and Fir (3021) reduced heights necessary to meet 1997 OLS by: [a] identifying current RL of top of both trees; 2 [b] identifying RL for ground level and 1997 OLS level for both trees; [cl identifying height of trees to remain and to be removed to comply with 1997 OLS. C: The Airport Company or its authorized agents who have received a copy of this decision may enter the site to undertake survey, measurements, and mark the two trees with the 1997 OLS level. Such access is to occur at reasonable times on notice to the owner and tenant. D: If agreement cannot be reached within 1 week of each tree being marked the court will convene a teleconference to discuss final or further orders or directions. E: Leave and costs are reserved. REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction [1] Rotorua Regional Airport Limited (the Airport Company) seeks enforcement orders against Mr G W Fischer, directing him to trim trees on his property at 628 Te Ngae Road, Rotorua.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Report – Port of Tauranga and Rotorua Airport August 2013
    Border Report – Port of Tauranga and Rotorua Airport August 2013 Purpose A preliminary report to understand the level of risk the Port of Tauranga (POT) and Rotorua Airport present to the Bay of Plenty kiwifruit industry with the intent of determining if the current level of protection is adequate. Background Biosecurity in New Zealand consists of a multi –layer system that begins offshore with pre-border activities, incorporates the border and continues post-border into New Zealand where it becomes a joint effort between central government, regional councils, industry, community groups, and all New Zealanders, (a paper describing this system in more detail can be found on the KVH website www.kvh.org.nz/kiwifruit_biosecurity_risks). This paper will review a single layer, border interventions at ports of entry. Any port of entry has the potential to bring unwanted pests and diseases into New Zealand that could be detrimental to the kiwifruit industry, however, given the high concentration of the kiwifruit industry in the Bay of Plenty, this report has focused on the ports of entry in the immediate proximity to this region, which are the Port of Tauranga and the Rotorua Airport. The Port of Tauranga is New Zealand’s second largest port by container volume, and a major stop on the cruise ship circuit. Rotorua Airport is an International Airport receiving two trans-Tasman flights a week. Imports into POT, cruise ships, and passenger traffic through Rotorua Airport are all potential pathways for risk items to enter New Zealand and each will be reviewed to provide an overview of operations, potential risks that each present and how these risks are being mitigated.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Productivity Commission on the Draft Report on Better Urban Planning
    SUBMISSION TO THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION ON THE DRAFT REPORT ON BETTER URBAN PLANNING 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The New Zealand Airports Association ("NZ Airports") welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Productivity Commission's Draft Report on Better Urban Planning ("Draft Report"). 1.2 NZ Airports has submitted on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill ("RLAB") and presented to the Select Committee on the RLAB, and has also submitted on the Proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity ("NPS-UDC"). Our members have also been closely involved in extensive plan review processes in Auckland and Christchurch. Such participation is costly and time consuming - but necessary, given the important role the planning framework plays in our operations. 1.3 As discussed in our previous submissions, it is fundamental to the development of productive urban centres that residential and business growth does not hinder the effective current or future operation of New Zealand's airports. 1.4 In our view, the Draft Report does not adequately acknowledge the importance of significant infrastructure like airports in the context of urban planning and the need to effectively manage reverse sensitivity effects on such infrastructure. This is reflected in some of the Commission's recommendations which seek to limit notification and appeal rights and introduce the ability to amend zoning without using the Schedule 1 process in the Resource Management Act 1991 ("RMA"). NZ Airports has major concerns with such recommendations as they stand to significantly curtail the ability of infrastructure providers to be involved in planning processes and have their key concerns, such as reverse sensitivity effects, taken into account.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study: New Zealand
    Case Study: New Zealand Background Because of its geographic location, its dependence on tourism, and the absence of a comprehensive rail network, New Zealand has developed a large international and national airports network over the years. Until 1966, almost all New Zealand important airports were developed by the State and remained under the central Government ownership and management. There are three main international airports. First, Auckland Airport is the busiest and the main international airport. It is the only airport serving the Auckland metropolitan area, which gathers a third of the country’s total population. Second, Wellington International Airport is also a major domestic hub serving mainly business and government. International flights at Wellington Airport are principally from/to Australia. Third, Christchurch International Airport is the major international airport in the South Island, where it acts as the main hub and attracts a significant share of New Zealand’s international tourist traffic. There are other international airports in New Zealand, such as Dunedin, Hamilton, Queenstown, and Palmerston North, which also get flights from other countries (mainly Australia). Other commercial airports serve domestic and regional traffic. Commercialization/privatization: Airports The commercialization of New Zealand’s airports started early. First, the 1961 Joint Airport Scheme established the principles that resulted in both central and local governments jointly owning and operating airport facilities. The objective of this policy was both to benefit from the expertise of local governments on regional economic needs and opportunities, and to make local government directly invest in airport infrastructure. In 1974, 24 airports throughout New Zealand were under a joint venture ownership.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Brand Toolkit
    New Zealand New / 2019 The stories of VERSION 3.0 VERSION Regional Brand Toolkit VERSION 3.0 / 2019 Regional Brand Toolkit The stories of New Zealand Welcome to the third edition of the Regional Brand Toolkit At Air New Zealand I’m pleased to share with you the revised version our core purpose of the Regional Brand Toolkit featuring a number of updates to regions which have undergone a is to supercharge brand refresh, or which have made substantial New Zealand’s success changes to their brand proposition, positioning or right across our great direction over the last year. country – socially, environmentally and We play a key role in stimulating visitor demand, growing visitation to New Zealand year-round economically. This is and encouraging visitors to travel throughout the about making a positive country. It’s therefore important we communicate AIR NEW ZEALAND impact, creating each region’s brand consistently across all our sustainable growth communications channels. and contributing This toolkit has proven to be a valuable tool for to the success of – Air New Zealand’s marketing teams, providing TOOLKIT BRAND REGIONAL New Zealand’s goals. inspiring content and imagery which we use to highlight all the regions which make our beautiful country exceptional. We’re committed to showcasing the diversity of our regions and helping to share each region’s unique story. And we believe we’re well placed to do this through our international schedule timed to connect visitors onto our network of 20 domestic destinations. Thank you to the Regional Tourism Organisations for the content you have provided and for the ongoing work you’re doing to develop strong and distinctive brands for your regions.
    [Show full text]
  • TERRACE AIRSIDE AIRPORT + COVID-19 So Much More Than Just Your Read About How Rotorua Airport Average Airport Café-Style Turned a Difficult Situation Into Some- Food
    R OTORUA AIRPORT LIMITED NEWSLETTER I SPRING 2020 | ISSUE 02 TERRACE AIRSIDE AIRPORT + COVID-19 So much more than just your Read about how Rotorua Airport average airport café-style turned a difficult situation into some- food. Be WOW’d by Terrace thing pretty special as an essential Airside’s offerings. service for the BOP Community. HAERE MAI | ROTORUA AIRPORT | SPRING 2020 | PAGE 1 During a strategy meeting in July we took a short break to head to Mokoia Island to learn about its history and cultural significance. Quick ride out to Mokoia Leaning about the history and significance of Mokoia Mokoia thermal pools Rotorua Airport team with guide Jason Tamaki Keep up-to-date with what’s happening at Rotorua Airport... [email protected] www.facebook.com/RotoruaAirport/ Phone 07 345 8800 State Highway 30, Rotorua, New Zealand www.linkedin.com/company/rotorua-airport Open Hours 5.30am - 9.15pm. Seven days a week HAERE MAI | ROTORUA AIRPORT | SPRING 2020 | PAGE 2 Kia ora and welcome to the second edition of our airport newsletter, Haere Mai. MARK GIBB, CHIEF EXECUTIVE We launched our first newsletter earlier this year and have received really positive feedback from our community. We very much hope you enjoy Issue 02 of Haere Mai. 2020 has been a very challenging year for all of us. Back in February we were looking towards a record 12 months for passenger movements. By April the impacts of COVID-19 were becoming clear and our schedules had effectively shut down Dawn blessing of new terminal in May domestic travel for anyone other than essential workers.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Issue 31 Complete
    KiwiFlyer TM Magazine of the New Zealand Aviation Community Issue 31 2013 #6 Supply and Maintenance $ 5.90 inc GST ISSN 1170-8018 Supplement Edition Robinson R22 Overhaul A Taste of Venom: Flying the DH 112 Products, Services, News, Events, Warbirds, Recreation, Training and more. KiwiFlyer Issue 31 2013 #6 From the Editor In this issue Welcome to our holiday season issue of KiwiFlyer. 12 A Taste os Venom: Flying the DH 112 There’s plenty of reading in this one which runs Owner John Luff, Engineer Gerry Gaston, and to a bumper 72 pages, making it our largest edition Test Pilot Sean Perret share their impressions yet. This issue includes a Supply and Maintenance and the excitement of a warbird jet fighter. Supplement section, with editorial and business profiles on a wide variety of aviation maintenance 18. The Kiwi Flyer Interview: Chris Rudge providers and supply organisations. The supplement Jill McCaw talks to Chris Rudge, pilot of includes a detailed article about a Robinson R22 balloons, gliders, helicopters and an Ag-Cat. overhaul, including everything owners need to know 20. Saitek ProFlight Multi Panel Test of and think about when undertaking such a project. We try out some of the lastest flight sim This should be of interest to anyone completing an enhancement gear from Saitek. aircraft overhaul, whether for rotary or fixed wing, as many of the considerations and decisions required 22. The P-40 Kittyhawk are the same regardless of the aircraft type. Frank Parker explains just what it’s like inside the cockpit of a P-40 Kittyhawk.
    [Show full text]
  • Cape Kidnappers, Hawkes Bay Newzealand.Com
    Cape Kidnappers, Hawkes Bay newzealand.com Introduction to New Zealand golf New Zealand is a compact country of two main islands stretching 1600 km/ 990 mi (north to south) and up to 400 km / 250 mi (east to west). With a relatively small population of just over 4.5 million people, there’s plenty of room in this green and spectacular land for fairways and greens. All told, New Zealand has just over work of world-class architects 400 golf courses, spread evenly such as Tom Doak, Robert Trent from one end of the country to Jones Jnr, Jack Nicklaus and the other, and the second highest David Harman who have designed number of courses per capita in at least 12 courses (complete the world. with five-star accommodation and cuisine). The thin coastal topography of the land coupled with its hilly Strategically located near either interior has produced a rich snow capped mountains or legacy of varied courses from isolated coastal stretches (and classical seaside links, to the in some cases both) these more traditional parkland courses locations provide not only further inland. superb natural backdrops for playing golf but the added Over the past 20 years, the bonus of breathtaking scenery. New Zealand golfing landscape has been greatly enhanced by the 2 Lydia Ko Lydia Ko is a New Zealand golfer. She was the world’s top amateur when she turned professional in 2013, and is the youngest ever winner of a professional golf event. “ New Zealand is simply an amazing golf destination. It has some of the best golf courses I have ever played.
    [Show full text]