BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARING PANEL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provision) Act 2010

AND

IN THE MATTER of Topic 016 RUB North/West

AND

IN THE MATTER of Wilks Road South Land Owners Group (WRSLOG) Submissions:

2431 2981 3004 3071 3196 3212 2692 2982 3007 3073 3198 3213 2972 2983 3009 3075 3200 3215 2973 2984 3032 3078 3201 3216 2974 2985 3037 3102 3203 3218 2975 2986 3040 3105 3205 3219 2977 2989 3041 3109 3207 3231 2978 2994 3044 3113 3208 3237 2979 2998 3054 3118 3209 3709 2980 3003 3058 3128 3211

STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF JOHN SCOTT ON BEHALF OF THE WILKS ROAD SOUTH LAND OWNERS GROUP (WRSLOG)

17 DECEMBER 2015

Rev.17.12.15 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Summary……………………………………………………………………………… 2

2 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 3

3 Scope and Reasons for Rebuttal…………….………………………………..…… 4

4 Refuting the Airfield Development Potential……… …………………………….. 5

5 Refuting the removal of areas of Dairy Flat from within the RUB………. 9

6 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………... 14

Attachment A Different versions of NSAC Rural Urban Boundaries Attachment B NSCA (David Park) Aviation Evidence, dated 27 November 2015 Attachment C CAA Guidance material for land use at or near aerodromes, 2008. Attachment D List of Aerodromes with Part 139 Certification

1

1. SUMMARY

1.1 My name is John Scott and I am providing this rebuttal in relation to evidence submitted by the North Shore Aero Club (NSAC) on the northern Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) part of Topic 016 RUB North/West (Topic 016). This relates to the Dairy Flat RUB and specifically to the area owned by the Wilks Road South Land Owners Group (WRSLOG), identified in the Auckland Council’s evidence as the Postman Road area. 1.2 WRSLOG made submissions on the notified Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), because the Postman Road (WRSLOG area) is excluded from within the RUB. We wish it included as our properties are surrounded on three sides by the Future Urban Zone (FUZ), depreciating the rural nature of our properties, whilst denying us future development opportunities. 1.3 However, in the Council’s Evidence submitted on the 14 October 2015, they supported the inclusion of the Postman Road (WRSLOG area) within the RUB, thereby alleviating these concerns and providing Auckland with much needed land for urban development. 1.4 In the WRSLOG Statement of Primary Evidence dated 16 November 2015, we fully concur and endorse the Council’s decisions to include the Postman Road (WRSLOG area) within the RUB and the FUZ. 1.5 In both our Submissions and Statement of Evidence, the WRSLOG fully support the objectives and policies that ensure the existing aerodrome activities are not compromised by reverse sensitivity issues and these should be resolved through future structure planning. 1.6 However, WRSLOG have been compelled to make this rebuttal because of the evidence presented by NSAC. 1.7 NSAC propose a significant buffer zone around the aerodrome that prohibits future urban development. They also expound on the growing importance of the airfield as a Satellite and the possibilities to expand, by extending the main runway across Postman Road. 1.8 This rebuttal is based on belief that the NSAC Statements of Evidence are unreasonable, unrealistic and not in the best interest of the Dairy Flat Community. 1.9 There are ample Civil Aviation Authority of (CAA) regulations and Council objectives, policies and rules for noise management and land use around airfields that can be implemented when developing the structure plan for Dairy Flat, so that the airfield’s existing activities are not compromised by reverse sensitivity or safety issues.

2 2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 My name is John Scott, I am a registered Chartered Engineer (Engineering Council UK), hold a NZ Private Pilot Licence and a member of NSAC. I am a retired Project Manager and a resident of Dairy Flat within the WRSLOG area. 2.2 This area is owned mainly by the WRSLOG members and is identified in the Auckland Council’s Statements of Evidence as the Postman Road area, as shown in Figure 1. 2.3 This is lay material that we wish to present to the Independent Hearing Panel (IHP) as a rebuttal of evidence submitted by the NSAC.

Figure 1 Dairy Flat Area, Highlighting the Postman Road (WRSLOG area) 2.4 WRSLOG fully support the objectives and policies that ensure the existing aerodrome activities are not compromised by reverse sensitivity issues and these should be resolved through future structure planning. However, NSAC wish to exclude most of Dairy Flat from the FUZ and develop a Satellite Auckland Airport.

3 3. SCOPE AND REASON FOR REBUTTAL

3.1 This rebuttal relates to the following Statements of Evidence:

NSCA (David Park) Aviation Evidence, dated 27 November 2015 NSAC (Joe Smith) – History and Economics Evidence, dated 16 November 2015 NSAC (Kaaren Rosser) – Planning Evidence, dated 16 November 2015 NSAC (Daryl Gillett) – Flight Training and Safety Evidence, 13 November 2015 NSAC (Carlton Campbell) – Submitters Evidence, dated November 2015

3.2 It should be noted that there is some confusion in the actual RUB being proposed by NSAC as there are the following versions (see Attachment A for RUB versions):

As presented in Figure 4 of NSAC Unitary Plan Submission 4931. As described in the NSAC Planning Evidence. This also has a precinct option for the entire area. As detailed in NSAC Aviation Evidence, which has most of Dairy Flat removed from the RUB with a second option for limiting the RUB boundary to the 55dB zone surrounding the aerodrome.

3.3 As the Aviation Evidence (see Attachment B), which was submitted after the submission deadline, is the latest version, this rebuttal will focus on this proposal with the intent of addressing the other versions at the same time. 3.4 This rebuttal is based on belief that the NSAC Statements of Evidence are both unreasonable in proposing that such a significant area is excluded from within the RUB and unrealistic in the proposed expansion of the airfield.

4 4. REFUTING THE AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

4.1 THE NSAC state in their Planning Evidence, paragraph 3.1 “the Council have not duly considered the importance of regional infrastructure, including the airport, when determining the proposed RUB area.” They appear to be using the development potential as justification for this position. 4.2 In the NSAC Unitary Plan Submission 4931 page 2, it states one of the club’s aspirations is to “Widen and lengthen the all weather landing strip. Any extension of the landing strip would need to be to the SW of the current main runway, extending across Postman Road for operational and safety reasons” 4.3 Under the heading of “The Airport’s expansion potential” the Aviation Evidence provides much more detail on this proposal. In paragraph 46 it states: “Ideally the sealed runway would be able to be extended to 1100m long and widened to 30m and sit within a 1220m by 150m strip with 90m long runway end safety areas beyond each end. This sealed runway length would be adequate for the operation of larger aircraft such as the 50 seat Bombardier Q300”. 4.4 Figure 2 details how WRSLOG perceive these proposed changes, as well as the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) mentioned in paragraph 36 of the Aviation Evidence. 4.5 Figure 3 highlights how WRSLOG understand the surrounding facilities and properties will be impacted from this proposed expansion. 4.6 As can be seen from Figure 3 the proposed runway extension would require the following: The purchase of land and removal of some Aero Park buildings. Relocation of most of the aerodrome hangars. Relocation of the Club House and offices. Purchase of properties SW of Postman Road and the demolition of houses. Postman Road rerouted or made a no through road. 4.7 The above does not include other requirements such as the need for adequate parking and other infrastructure necessary for a large commercial operation. 4.8 In addition, should the aerodrome wish to operate 50 seat aircraft, it will require Part 139 Certification, as the CAA state in their “Guidance material for land use at or near aerodromes”, page 1 (see Attachment C) The Part 139 certificate is required for aerodromes where aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats operate regular air transport operations. Aerodromes that do not meet the more than 30 passenger seat criteria may also hold a Part 139 certificate. 4.9 The requirements of Part 139 are extensive and likely to have significant impact on both the aerodrome and the surrounding area.

5

Figure 2 Detailing the Main Runway Extension as Proposed in the Aviation Evidence

6

Figure 3 Highlighting the Impact on Surrounding Facilities and Properties of the Proposed Main Runway Extension

7 4.10 NSAC state in paragraph 4 of their Planning Evidence “Considering that Airbase is to remain a Ministry of Defence base for the foreseeable future, and existing community opposition would never contemplate a fully commercial operation at that location, it is imperative that economic and land use tools align to allow for the required growth of North Shore Airport.” 4.11 Considering Whenuapai residents have been used to large multi-engine aircraft for years, including jets, why do NSAC consider Dairy Flat community will accept this proposal? 4.12 The social and environmental impact as well as the cost for this expansion will be significant and unlikely to be justifiable. 4.13 WRSLOG do not consider this enlargement a realistic proposition and believe NSAC are overemphasising the regional importance of the aerodrome in overstating the possibility of extending the main runway. 4.14 WRSLOG contend that the current use of the airfield for recreational flying, pilot training and small commercial operations can be accommodated if the regulations, objectives and policies are implemented through the future structure planning process, so as to ensure the airfield is not compromised.

8 5. REFUTING THE REMOVAL OF AREAS OF DAIRY FLAT FROM WITHIN THE RUB

5.1 In the NSAC Aviation Evidence they wish to exclude the majority of Dairy Flat from the FUZ by: Moving the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) outside the circuit area (see Figure 4); or As a minimum the RUB is moved outside the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) areas at each runway end (with provision for the main runway to be extended) and outside the 55 Ldn noise contour (see Figure 5)

Figure 4 Showing the RUB Outside the Circuit Area as Described in Option 1 of the Aviation Evidence

5.2 In the first option NSAC propose more than 20 square kilometres is outside the RUB and called it a Safety Area. 5.3 The CAA have specific requirements for land use around aerodromes and direction on these are given in the document “Guidance material for land use at or near aerodromes. (see Attachment C) 5.4 The CAA Guidance Material refers to the applicable New Zealand Aviation Rules (CARs) that must be met by all aerodromes operating under a Part 139 Certificate. (see Attachment D for the List of Aerodromes with Part 139 Certification)

9 5.5 The CAA Guidance states on page 2: The only CAR requirements on a non-certificated aerodrome are those that form part of the operating requirements for any airline or aircraft operator that uses the aerodrome.” 5.6 North Shore aerodrome is a non-certificated aerodrome, nevertheless even if it was Part 139 certified, there are no requirements to make the entire area within the circuit of an airfield a Safety Area that prohibits future urban development. 5.7 In paragraph 34 of the Aviation Evidence it quotes the CAA Guidance document: “Zoning solely to obstacle limitation surface is insufficient to prevent the construction of incompatible uses such as housing or uses that attract congregations of people in the approach areas. 5.8 The CAA Guidance goes on to state: In the United States a runway protection zone (RPZ) is used by many local authorities for the protection of people and property on the ground. Compatible land use within the RPZ is generally restricted to such land uses as agricultural, golf course, and similar uses which do not involve congregations of people or construction of buildings or other improvements that may be obstructions. Land uses prohibited from the RPZ are residences and places of public assembly including churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings and shopping centres. 5.9 The RPZ in the United States (US)1, or Public Safety Zone (PSZ), in the United Kingdom (UK)2 are areas of land at the ends of the runways at the busiest airports. 5.10 The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and centred about the extended runway centreline. 5.11 The PSZ is based on the landing threshold for each end of the runway and taper away from the runway based on the estimated 1:10,000 and 1:100,000 risk contours. 5.12 The US Federal Advisory Circular states on page 71 paragraph 310 “The RPZ’s function is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. This is best achieved through airport owner control over RPZs. Control is preferably exercised through the acquisition of sufficient property interest in the RPZ and includes clearing RPZ areas (and maintaining them clear) of incompatible objects and activities.”

1 Advisory Circular AC150/5300-13 Airport Design, United States Federal Aviation Administration, 9/29/89 2 DfT Circular 01/2010 Control of Development in Airport Safety Zones

10 5.13 The UK Department for Transport fT Circular states in on page 4 paragraph 6: “The Secretary of State wishes to see the emptying of all occupied residential properties, and of all commercial and industrial properties occupied as normal allday workplaces, within the 1 in 10,000 individual risk contour. In cases where any part of a residential property falls within this contour he will expect the operator of an airport for which new Public Safety Zones have already been established to make an offer to purchase the property or, at the option of the owner, such part of its garden as falls within this contour. In addition he will expect such operators to make an offer to purchase, in whole or in part, a commercial or industrial property if that property, or the relevant part of it, is occupied as a normal allday workplace and falls within this contour. If the part of the property in question is discrete or selfcontained, and its loss would not materially affect the business concerned, only that part need be the subject of such an offer. Otherwise the airport operator should offer to purchase the entire property. In the case of airports for which Public Safety Zones are established or redefined after the date of this Circular, the Secretary of State will expect the operators to make such an offer, where applicable, within twelve months of the notification of the Public Safety Zones and the 1 in 10,000 individual risk contours. 5.14 Should the NSAC wish to implement a RPZ or PSZ, then they should follow the direction provided by the UK and US circulars.

11

Figure 5 Showing the RUB Outside the 55dB Noise Contour- Option 2 in the Aviation Evidence 5.15 In the second option NASC propose the RUB should follow the 55 dB noise contour. 5.16 Should the main runway be extended as proposed by NSAC, the noise contour may require to be increased in size. 5.17 NZS6805 – Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning (1992) layout recommended criteria for Land Use Planning around airports. In summary it states: Inside the 65dB contour New noise sensitive uses (including residential) should be prohibited; Existing residential buildings and subsequent alterations should have appropriate sound insulation.

Between 65dB and 55dB contours New noise sensitive uses (including residential) should be prohibited unless a District Plan permits such use subject to appropriate sound insulation. Alterations or additions to existing noise sensitive uses (including residential) should include appropriate sound insulation.

12

5.18 WRSLOG contend that these flexible provisions are to enable development between the 65dB and 55 dB contours. They allow for landowners’ expectations of property rights and regional pressure for housing to make available developable land, that would otherwise be restricted as a result of moderate noise levels. 5.19 It should be noted that the Aero Park development is within both the 65dB and 55dB noise contours, with the area designated as a precinct. (see Figure 5) 5.20 WRSLOG have stated both in the Unitary Plan Submissions and in our Statement of Evidence that they are fully supportive of the objectives and policies that ensure the airfield is not compromised by reverse sensitivity issues. Housing density and other relevant planning issues (e.g. reverse sensitivity) should be resolved through future structure planning (such as the use of Precincts) and detailed zone rules (e.g. restrictive covenants on titles and acoustic protection for buildings). 5.21 WRSLOG contend that the NSAC proposal for the RUB to follow the 55 dB noise contour is unreasonable, considering the flexibility provided under NZS6805 and the precedent set by the Aero Park precinct being built within both the 65dB and 55dB noise contours.

13 6. CONCLUSION

6.1 There are ample CAA regulations and Council objectives, policies and rules for noise management and land use around airfields that can be implemented when developing the structure plan for Dairy Flat, so that the airfield is not compromised by reverse sensitivity or safety issues. 6.2 The proposed extension of the main runway is unrealistic and the WRSLOG maintain that the NSAC options for the RUB are not justifiable and unreasonable. 6.3 WRSLOG contend that the current use of the airfield for recreational flying, pilot training and small commercial operations can be accommodated, if the regulations, objectives and policies that ensure the airfield is not compromised are implemented through the future structure planning process.

14

ATTACHMENT A

Different versions of NSAC Rural Urban Boundaries

Preferred RUB as presented in Figure 4 of NSAC Unitary Plan Submission # 4931

NSAC preferred RUB area are yellow and proposed areas to be removed are orange.

Preferred RUB as shown state NSAC Planning Evidence – Option 1

NSAC preferred RUB areas are yellow and those excluded are dark brown.

Proposed Precinct RUB as shown state NSAC Planning Evidence – Option 2

NSAC propose precinct boundary is in red.

As detailed in NSAC Aviation Evidence –Option 1

The proposed RUB boundary is in dark orange, all the yellow areas within this boundary that NSAC wish as a Safety Area, are to be removed from the FUZ

As detailed in NSAC Aviation Evidence –Option 2

NSAC propose the RUB follows the 55dB noise contour and all yellow properties within this boundary are removed from the FUZ.

ATTACHMENT B

NSCA (David Park) Aviation Evidence, dated 27 November 2015

BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL

IN THE MATTER The Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional provisions) Act 2010 – proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

AND

IN THE MATTER of a Submission on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Submitter: David Park

Topic/No: 016&017 RUB North/West and RIB South

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF

David Stewart Park

(AVIATION ISSUES)

Dated 27 November 2015 INTRODUCTION

1 My full name is David Stewart Park.

2 I am a self-employed aviation consultant and Director of Astral Limited, an independent Aviation Consultancy established by me in 1997 which specialises in providing technical advice and services for a number of New Zealand and overseas Airport companies, airlines, military, consulting engineers and the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (CAA).

3 My professional qualifications include a Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) (University of Canterbury), Master of Science (Aircraft Design) (Cranfield University, United Kingdom) and Master of Business Administration (University of Auckland). I am a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society, a Freeman member of the Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators and a Chartered Engineer in the United Kingdom.

4 I have had 25 years' experience in aircraft flight operations with major airlines in various technical and managerial roles, including 20 years' experience with and three years with Qantas New Zealand in relation to flight operations and aircraft performance.

5 From 2009 until October 2015 I was a Director and more latterly Deputy Chairman of Airways Corporation, the Government owned entity that provides air traffic control and related services in New Zealand and internationally.

6 I have been extensively involved with airport planning issues for large and small airports in New Zealand. In particular I provide or have provided technical advice relating to aircraft operations and aerodrome requirements to , Rotorua, Queenstown, Wanaka, Manapouri, Timaru, Omarama, Pukaki, Kaikoura, Nelson, Gisborne, Taupo, , Hamilton, Whangarei, Whakatane, and Ardmore airports.

7 I have worked extensively with the CAA in relation to airport certification issues and have an in-depth knowledge of CAA aerodrome design requirements.

8 I was a member of the committee of experts that developed New Zealand Standard NZS6805 – Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning (1992) (NZS6805) and have extensive experience in the prediction and management of aircraft noise at airports. In this context I have for the last 10 years chaired the Ardmore Airport Noise Consultative Committee which manages the Ardmore Airport Noise Management Plan. I have been engaged as an expert on behalf of Queenstown, Wellington and Ardmore airports regarding reverse sensitivity effects arising from noise sensitive land uses being located close to those airports.

9 I am broadly familiar with the planning issues in the Auckland Unitary Plan that potentially affect North Shore Airport (the Airport). I have visited the Airport and discussed its operations with Mr Joe Smith, the North Shore Aero Club's (NSAC) President.

10 I have read the evidence of Mr Smith, Mr Gillett (NSAC), Ms Rosser (Haines Planning Ltd) and Mr Carlton Campbell of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (CAA). I support those statements of evidence where consistent with my evidence.

11 I have also read the parts of the evidence of David Paul (Council's planning witness) which relate to the Airport.

12 My evidence is given in accordance with the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses. My qualifications as an expert are set out above. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

13 My evidence will provide the Hearings Panel with an appreciation of:

The growing importance of the Airport to air transport links in top half of the .

The need to protect airports against reverse sensitivity effects of aircraft noise, disturbance and flight path safety.

The near impossibility of building a new “green fields” airport in New Zealand.

The Airport's expansion potential to service larger air transport aircraft.

The looming world wide pilot shortage and the importance of pilot training facilities both as a source of pilots to New Zealand airlines and as a foreign exchange earner when training foreign pilots. The concerns I have over the proposals presented by Mr David Paul in his evidence on behalf of Auckland Council in relation to submissions on the Northern Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) Dairy Flat in the vicinity of the Airport which would bring the RUB much closer to the Airport.

Importance of the Airport

14 The Airport is an essential aviation resource for the wider Auckland region and is part of New Zealand's air transport infrastructure. In addition it provides an important recreational, emergency medical air services, aircraft manufacture and servicing and pilot training facility as described in Mr Smith's and Mr Gillett's evidence.

15 With regard to air transport, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the major international airports in New Zealand are reluctant to allow the operation of small aircraft (less than 50 seats). This is for economic reasons i.e. the return in terms of passenger numbers on their available landing “slots” and also for peak time air traffic control/congestion reasons.

16 At Auckland International Airport small aircraft are increasingly being displaced to the “satellite” Auckland airports of Ardmore and North Shore. Both these airports now receive scheduled flights from small regional airlines including Barrier airlines, which operates 30-40 flights a week at the Airport and Sun Air which operates services at Ardmore. I fully expect this trend to continue. These small airlines provide vital links to destinations such as Great Barrier Island, the Coromandel, Northland and the Bay of Plenty.

17 Due to changes in aircraft design technology, as described by Mr Smith in his evidence, and/or if the runway is extended as described later in my evidence, I expect this “catchment area” to increase in size as larger and more cost effective aircraft are able to be used. This will enable the rapidly growing North Shore area to be connected directly with other nearby regions thereby facilitating business links, leisure travel and tourism.

18 North Shore Airport is particularly important as it is the only aerodrome between Auckland International and Whangarei that is developed for all weather day/night commercial air transport services. itself has restrictions which have been documented in the media and possible alternative sites are currently being investigated.

19 This area is very fast growing in both population and business activity. The extension of the northern motorway past Puhoi will result in more development and population in the wider Auckland area further from Auckland International. 20 For these reasons I believe an airport on the North Shore providing an alternative to an increasingly long commute to Auckland International is an essential part of the regional infrastructure.

21 I note that the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) when it existed had the same view. From the mid 1980's it commissioned several reports from consultants on capacity of the secondary airports in the Auckland region, the theme of which was to ensure adequate capacity protected at the region's airports because of their regional significance.1

22 I also note Auckland Plan at Chapter 13, Auckland Transport, Directive 13.7 Point 769 states:

“ Additionally, we will protect the operations of our smaller airports such as Ardmore and Dairy Flat, (currently used for recreation), as they can provide a flexible alternative for future freight movements. Whenuapai Airbase is expected to continue its defence operations. “

In addition Part 1 Chapter B Regional Policy Statement Section 3.3 Transport includes airports (and airfields) as part of the Region's transport system and sets out objectives and policies that intended to protect these facilities.

23 This underscores but actually understates the importance of the Airport to the region as the airport is used for much more than simply recreational flying. It's value lies in flight training, air transport services and the employment and value creation generated by aircraft design and servicing activities occurring there.

Reverse sensitivity effects

24 As mentioned earlier I have been involved with reverse sensitivity effects at Queenstown, Wellington and Ardmore airports. Each of these airports has been faced with restrictions on use due to nearby residents' complaints about aircraft noise. This is despite the fact that the airports existed well before most residents moved to their proximity.

25 Two underlying principles apply in avoiding or mitigating reverse sensitivity. Together these principles are the foundation of both NZS6805 and airport noise management world wide as laid down by both the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the United States Federal Aviation Authority.

1 The most recent of these reports was entitled Auckland Regional General Aviation Study Review 2009-Draft, 19 August 2009, Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner. 26 These two principles are:

The implementation of effective land use controls to avoid noise sensitive land uses, in particular residential housing, encroaching on an airport; and

The management of aircraft operations to limit noise emissions to within agreed noise contours and to mitigate disturbance, for example through the adoption of a noise management plan.

27 These principles have been applied at all three airports mentioned above and have together enabled the airport and it's local community to co-exist in relative harmony.

28 It is essential to understand that reducing noise at source, or mitigations such as acoustic insulation, cannot alone solve current and future reverse sensitivity issues. Sensible land use planning is essential. In this context I fully support the outcome of the Expert Conference for the Airport Noise Topic (Topic 045) as described at paragraph 6.1 of Ms Rosser's evidence in agreeing the rezoning from Rural Zone to Future Urban Zone should be avoided inside the 55 dB Ldn [airport noise contour].

29 I also fully endorse Mr Peakall's view, as described at paragraph 6.2 of Ms Rosser's evidence, that noise insulation alone will not address noise issues, and Ms Rosser's conclusion that providing an adequate area of rural zoned land around the airport is the best means of controlling reverse sensitivity effects.

30 In addition to cumulative noise exposure, single event noise levels can cause reverse sensitivity due to disturbance and 'startle” effects. This is particularly so at airports where flight training occurs due to the nature of some training manoeuvres, which are mandatory for the issue of a pilot’s licence, such as engine failure after take-off and poor weather (low level) circuits. Night take-off and landing (“circuits”) can also cause disturbance especially in the summer months where nightfall is later in the evening.

31 The 55 Ldn contour alone may not provide enough protection for these activities and for that reason, as well as for safety of persons on the ground, I believe it is unwise and inappropriate to allow residential development under the circuit path. In that regard I endorse Mr Gillett's evidence, which identifies at attachment 2 the circuit area for the Airport.

32 Ardmore Airport, which has extensive flight training operations, had reverse sensitivity arising out of engine failure after take-off practice and night circuit training despite the surrounding area being rural. These have been largely resolved by implementing a curfew on night circuit training and minimum height limits on engine failure practice (which can be detrimental to the usefulness of the training). However had the area beneath the flight path been zoned residential with a consequent large increase in affected population, I very much doubt flight training could occur at Ardmore today.

33 Flight path safety is of paramount importance to aircraft operations. Allowing people intensive uses of land beneath flight paths in the take-off and landing areas outside the airport's boundary is contrary to international best practice.

34 The CAA guidance material for land use at or near aerodromes states:

“Zoning solely to obstacle limiting surfaces is insufficient to prevent the construction of incompatible uses such as housing or uses that attracts congregations of people into the approach areas”.2

35 The CAA guidance material notes that a runway protection zone (RPZ) such as used in the United States (US) is used by many local authorities for the protection of people and property on the ground.

36 The US RPZ standards which in my opinion should be provided for at the Airport would require a clear area approximately 300m long by 200m wide (being 100m either side of runway extended centreline) extending from the ends of the main runway and 300m long by 135m wide from each end of the cross runway.3 Within the RPZ area activities that result in congregation of people are prohibited e.g. churches, schools, offices, and shopping centres. Fuel storage is not permitted and car parking is discouraged.

37 In locating the RPZ, provision should be made for the main runway to be extended as described later in my evidence.

38 Referring to Mr Paul's Figure 1 “Dairy Flat Group” these areas will extend into the RUB from the runway ends north east into Dairy Flat and Silverdale/Weiti, to the east into Dairy Flat, to the south west into Postman Rd and Dairy Flat and to the west into Postman Rd.

39 In my view it is totally inappropriate for safety of persons on the ground to have the RUB

2 Guidance material for land use at or near aerodromes, Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand June 2008 3 Advisory Circular AC150/5300-13 Airport Design, United States Federal Aviation Administration, 9/29/89, paragraph 212 inside these areas as it potentially allows such uses. Instead a zoning which prohibits activities where people congregate should be enacted.

40 In summary for the avoidance of reverse sensitivity issues I believe the RUB should not extend into the circuit area as depicted in Attachment 2 Diagram 1 of my evidence as this protects both noise disturbance and the safety of persons on the ground beneath the flight paths.4 I believe rural zoning is appropriate and should be retained to provide this protection.

“Greenfields” airport

41 Reverse sensitivity effects frequently result in calls for an airport to be “moved” which of course means its activities to be moved somewhere else. As I described earlier in my evidence there is no existing facility on the North Shore that can accommodate the current or future flying activities at the Airport.

42 The alternative of building a new “green fields” facility somewhere else does not in my view exist in relation to the Airport because:

There is a lack of suitable flat land

The cost of development is prohibitive and can't be funded from landing charges or hangar leases.

43 No matter where an airport is proposed to be located local residents will almost certainly oppose it on noise and disturbance grounds. In my 35 years of involvement with aviation in New Zealand I am not aware of a facility the scale of the Airport that has been developed from “green fields”. The airports that exist in New Zealand now were mostly developed as a result of WW2, or the far sightedness of central government in the 1960's. I believe these are probably the only airports New Zealand will have in the foreseeable future. They are an irreplaceable asset.

The Airport's expansion potential

44 An airport's capacity generally relates directly to its runway length. The layout of the airport is shown in Attachment 1.

45 Currently the sealed main runway is 791m long by 9m wide. It is contained within a runway strip 811m long by 60m wide. There is a smaller cross runway.

4 This diagram is sourced from Mr Gillett's evidence Attachment 2. 46 Ideally the sealed runway would be able to be extended to 1100m long and widened to 30m and sit within a 1220m by 150m strip with 90m long runway end safety areas beyond each end. This sealed runway length would be adequate for the operation of larger aircraft such as the 50 seat Bombardier Q300.

47 NSAC has studied the possibility of extending the sealed runway and its strip in both directions. I understand NSAC already has a long term lease(s) on some of the required land which would enable this to be done.

48 I have briefly reviewed the proposal and confirm that in concept it appears to be feasible. However it would be precluded if the proposed Dairy Flat and Postman Rd RUB, as depicted in Figure 1 of Mr Paul's evidence, extended up to Postman Road at the south west end of the runway.

49 The existing runway length is only suitable for small aircraft seating up to 10-15 seats. These aircraft are not suitable for flights beyond approximately 1-1.5hr due to both passenger comfort and the operating cost on a “per seat” basis which is typically 25-30% more than the per seat cost of aircraft over 20 seats capacity.

50 This cost difference translates into a similar difference in ticket prices meaning the larger aircraft are much more attractive to the travelling public and can provide a more economically efficient option for the North Shore's air transport requirements.

51 By way of comparison, Whangarei Airport has a sealed runway length of 1097m and has scheduled air services to Auckland by 50 seat Bombardier Q300 aircraft operated by Air New Zealand. Lord Howe airport, some 600km from the New South Wales coast has an 886m long runway and has scheduled services to and from Sydney, a flight time of about 1.5hrs. A similar flight distance around North Shore Airport would cover all the North Island, allowing a very substantial improvement in the ability to link the North Shore directly with other main centres in New Zealand.

Pilot training

52 A world wide shortage of professional pilots is rapidly becoming a serious concern in the development of air transport.

53 The Boeing Company projects a world wide demand for 558,000 new commercial pilots over the next 20 years of which 226,000 will be in the Asia Pacific region5. Without an adequate supply of trained pilots air transport world wide, which generates an estimated 8% of global GDP, will be significantly constrained.

54 New Zealand itself requires an on-going supply of trained pilots for it's domestic and international air transport fleets, and in addition pilots from overseas train here. New Zealand is an ideal place to train because of uncrowded skies, good weather, varied terrain and flight conditions, and high training standards.

55 In his evidence Mr Smith notes the quality of the pilot training provided by NSAC, and Mr Gillett notes in his that there are currently three pilot training organisations based at the Airport. Pilot training organisations attract money and jobs to the local community and, if the trainees are from different cultures, add diversity to the communities they reside in.

56 As I stated earlier in my evidence flight training is particularly prone to reverse sensitivity issues due to the flight training exercises used and the requirement for repetitive circuit training particularly at night. I believe it would be very detrimental to ongoing training activity at the Airport if the RUB was moved to the location envisaged in the Unitary Plan.

57 For these reasons I believe a reduction in, or constraints on, training activity at the Airport would be detrimental to the local community and against the long term interests of New Zealand aviation and commerce.

EVIDENCE OF DAVID PAUL

58 I have read the statement of evidence of David Paul insofar as it relates to the Airport and proposed relocation of the RUB. I understand Mr Paul proposes that the RUB be located closer to the Airport than the Section 32 report recommended. In effect the RUB would almost totally surround the airport to its boundaries.

59 I note at his paragraph 1.4 Mr Paul states that in his opinion the reverse sensitivity effects on the Airport can be addressed through the structure plan process and staging. It seems to me this offers little certainty that the airport would be protected and, as noted by Ms Rosser in her evidence, would allow a piecemeal approach to land use consents around the Airport. In my opinion this is very weak protection for the Airport and, as far as I am aware, is contrary to the clear-cut approach taken to land use controls around other New Zealand airports.

5 2015 Pilot Training and Technician Outlook, Boeing Edge Flight Services. 60 I am particularly concerned at Mr Paul's sweeping inclusion of the Postman Rd area into the RUB, right to the Airport's common boundary with Postman Rd when this area is crossed by both the west and south west take-off and approach paths. I see no justification at all for changing the existing zoning in this area as any intensification of use is a public safety concern.

61 CHANGES RECOMMENDED TO RUB LOCATION

62 For the reasons stated in my evidence I recommend either:

The RUB be moved outside of the circuit area shown in Attachment 2 Diagram 1 of my evidence; or

As a minimum the RUB is moved outside the RPZ areas at each runway end (with provision for the main runway to be extended) as described in my evidence, and outside the 55Ldn noise contour.

63 I believe protection of the Airport in this way would be a far more satisfactory and certain approach than reliance on a later potentially piecemeal structure plan process. Attachment 1: Plan of North Shore Airport

Source: New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority Aeronautical Information Publication

ATTACHMENT C

CAA Guidance material for land use at or near aerodromes, 2008.

Guidance material for land use at or near aerodromes

June 2008

Guidance material for land use at or near airports.

Table of Contents

Overview ...... 1 Glossary ...... 1 Types of Aerodromes ...... 1 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces ...... 2 Wildlife Hazard Management ...... 2 Notice of Intention to Construct, Alter, Activate or Deactivate an Aerodrome ...... 4 Objects and Activities Affecting Navigable Airspace ...... 4 Noise Issues ...... 5 Local Authority Zoning ...... 5 Summary ...... 6 Contacting the CAA ...... 6

June 2008 i CAA of NZ Guidance material for land use at or near airports.

Overview The environment at and surrounding an airport has unique characteristics that impact on land use. Specific requirements for the operation of aircraft, airport design and airspace management are covered in the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and Civil Aviation Rules. The regulatory oversight of these requirements is undertaken by the Director of Civil Aviation and the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand. New Zealand is a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention) which is a set of international requirements for civil aviation coordinated through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). New Zealand has adopted the ICAO standards and recommended practices as the basis for New Zealand Civil Aviation Rules (CARs). Aerodrome operators in New Zealand should monitor and review land use activities around their aerodrome to ensure the safe operation of aircraft and protection of airspace. Those persons making changes to land use must ensure that they comply with any applicable CARs, local authority planning requirements and work with aerodrome operators in land use changes. The following provides guidance for those persons proposing land use changes around aerodromes and identifies specific points to be taken into account.

Glossary Aerodrome— (1) means any defined area of land or water intended or designed to be used either wholly or partly for the landing, departure, and surface movement of aircraft; and (2) includes any buildings, installations, and equipment on or adjacent to any such area used in connection with the aerodrome or its administration. (An aerodrome includes a heliport) Civil Aviation Rules means rules made under the Civil Aviation Act.

Types of Aerodromes Many aerodromes in New Zealand hold a Civil Aviation Rule Part 139 aerodrome operating certificate. These include international and large domestic aerodromes. The Part 139 certificate is required for aerodromes where aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats operate regular air transport operations. Aerodromes that do not meet the more than 30 passenger seat criteria may also hold a Part 139 certificate. The Part 139 certificate requires the aerodrome operator to comply with a range of rules and requirements including ongoing CAA oversight. Under Part 139, there are two specific requirements to be met for land use; Obstacle Limitation Surfaces and Wildlife Hazard Management.

June 2008 1 CAA of NZ Guidance material for land use at or near airports.

The remainder of New Zealand’s aerodromes are non-certificated. The only CAR requirements on a non-certificated aerodrome are those that form part of the operating requirements for any airline or aircraft operator that uses the aerodrome.

Obstacle Limitation Surfaces Under CAR 139.51 an aerodrome operator must have in place obstacle limitation surfaces for the aerodrome that are defined surfaces in the airspace above and adjacent to the aerodrome. These obstacle limitation surfaces are necessary to enable aircraft to maintain a satisfactory level of safety while manoeuvring at low altitude in the vicinity of the aerodrome. These surfaces should be free of obstacles and subject to control such as the establishment of zones, where the erection of buildings, masts and so on, are prohibited. More information on obstacle limitation surfaces (OLS) can be viewed online at www.caa.govt.nz under Advisory Circulars. For Part 139 certificated aerodromes the OLS requirements can be found in Chapter 4 of CAA Advisory Circular AC139-6. For non-certificated aerodromes the OLS requirements can be found in Chapter 3 of CAA Advisory Circular AC139-7. For heliports the OLS requirements can be found in Chapter 4 of CAA Advisory Circular AC139-8. The OLS surfaces are normally published in the local District Plan and can also be sourced directly from the aerodrome operator. It is important that any proposed building or structure does not infringe required OLS areas. Consultation with the aerodrome operator and the relevant local authority at an early stage is essential.

Wildlife Hazard Management Under CAR 139.71 an aerodrome operator must establish an environmental management programme to minimise or eliminate any wildlife hazard that presents a hazard to aircraft operations at their aerodrome in areas within their authority. The management of wildlife, especially birds, is critical for aircraft operational safety. Bird strikes put the lives of aircraft crew members and their passengers at risk. In the United States over 7,500 bird and other wildlife strikes were reported for civil aircraft in 2007. Bird and other wildlife strikes to aircraft annually are estimated to cause well over $600 million in damage to civil and military aviation in the United States alone. It is important that land use changes are monitored and reviewed by the aerodrome operator in areas outside their immediate control to ensure that these land use changes do not increase wildlife hazards for the aerodrome. Garbage disposal dumps and other sources that may attract wildlife activity on, or in the vicinity of, an aerodrome, need to be assessed as a potential source of wildlife hazard. It is

June 2008 2 CAA of NZ Guidance material for land use at or near airports.

an International Civil Aviation Organisation requirement that such activities are closely managed by the controlling authority. If necessary an aeronautical study may need to be undertaken to assess the potential wildlife activity hazard. Examples of wildlife attractants include:

• Refuse Dumps and landfills

• Sewage Treatment and Disposal

• Agricultural - cultivation of land, types of activity e.g. pig farming.

• Fish processing plants

• Cattle feed lots

• Wildlife refuges

• Artificial and natural lakes

• Animal farms

• Abattoirs and freezing works Proper planning of these activities and their impacts on wildlife should be undertaken. It should be noted that aircraft approach and departure areas may extend for a distance from the aerodrome runway, therefore wildlife impacts on aircraft activities may not be immediately apparent. Consult the aerodrome operator as early in the planning as possible. The International Civil Aviation Organisation provide specific environmental management and site planning information on the following: Refuse dump or landfills If a refuse dump is proposed in the vicinity of the aerodrome there may be a requirement to provide bird control at the site to reduce the attractiveness to birds. The potential threat to aircraft depends on location relative to airport and flight paths, type of refuse, and the types of birds expected in the vicinity. The ICAO Bird Control and Reduction Manual recommends that refuse dump sites be located no closer than 13 kilometres from the airport property. The proper siting of refuse dumps can reduce hazard and any location should be analysed by a group of specialists on bird problems. Water Surface water is a large bird attractant and developments that have drainage ditches, artificial waterways and large areas of water close to an aerodrome may attract birds and other wildlife. In the ICAO Bird Control and Reduction Manual it is noted that in the vicinity of an aerodrome artificial and natural lakes increase the bird strike hazard depending on the size and the shape of the lake, its ecological state and the surroundings. It is recommended that

June 2008 3 CAA of NZ Guidance material for land use at or near airports.

an ornithologist/biologist evaluate the ecological conditions of the whole vicinity as well as migration in the area. The bird strike hazard can be reduced if the lake is made smaller and the shores steeper, and if fishing, hunting and water sports are forbidden. Filling a lake with soil or covering the surface with wires and nets are two of the better solutions to the problem.

Notice of Intention to Construct, Alter, Activate or Deactivate an Aerodrome Civil Aviation Rule Part 157 requires that prior notice be given to the Director of Civil Aviation whenever a person intends to construct, alter, activate or deactivate an aerodrome. This notice will enable the Director to identify whether the use of the airspace associated with the aerodrome proposal will be a hazard to other established airspace users. It will also allow identification of problems to do with the safety of persons and property on the ground. It is also necessary to consider efficient use of airspace at an early stage. The Director, after receiving such notice, will give advice on the effects the proposal would have on the use of navigable airspace by aircraft and on the safety of persons and property on the ground. An aeronautical study will be undertaken and a determination on the proposal made. The Part 157 rule requirements and Part 157 Advisory Circular are available on the CAA web site www.caa.govt.nz There is also a Part 157 information leaflet available from CAA or at: http://www.caa.govt.nz/aerodromes/Aero_Studies_Pt157_info.pdf

Objects and Activities Affecting Navigable Airspace Civil Aviation Rule Part 77 prescribes rules for a person proposing to construct or alter a structure that could constitute a hazard in navigable airspace; or use of a structure, lights, lasers, weapons, or pyrotechnics, that could constitute a hazard in navigable airspace. There are several areas that require a Part 77 application for a determination on such objects and activities including:

• A structure that extends more than 60 m in height above the ground level at its site.

• A structure that exceeds the general tree height in the area by 18 m and is located in an area of low level aerial activity or other low flying activity, or in a low flying zone or low level route as prescribed under Part 71.

• A structure that is located below the approach or take-off surfaces of an aerodrome as defined in Part 77.

• A structure that penetrates the obstacle limitation surface of an aerodrome.

June 2008 4 CAA of NZ Guidance material for land use at or near airports.

• A person proposing to use a structure that may discharge efflux at a velocity in excess of 4.3 m per second through an obstacle limitation surface of an aerodrome or higher than 60 metres above ground level.

• A person proposing to operate a light or a laser if the light or laser is liable to endanger aircraft.

• A person or organisation that proposes to use a weapon that fires or launches a projectile that has a trajectory higher than 45 m if within 4 km of an aerodrome boundary, or 120 m if more than 4 km from an aerodrome boundary.

• A person who proposes to stage a pyrotechnics display that involves the firing or launching of a projectile that has a trajectory higher than 45 m if within 4 km of an aerodrome boundary or 120 m if more than 4 km from an aerodrome boundary. A person proposing to construct or alter a structure must notify the Director of Civil Aviation 90 days before the proposed date of commencement of construction or alteration. The specific requirements are detailed in Civil Aviation Rule 77.13. An aeronautical study will be undertaken and a determination on the proposal made. Full details and information on Part 77 requirements are available in the Part 77 Rule which can be accessed at the CAA web site www.caa.govt.nz.

Noise Issues Noise issues to do with aerodromes are the responsibility of the local controlling authority and the CAA does not have any statutory function in relation to aircraft or aerodrome noise. The Minister does produce rules relating to noise abatement measures under Civil Aviation Rule Part 93 which are published on behalf of the aerodrome operator from local authority requirements.

Local Authority Zoning The CAA encourage local authorities to protect aerodromes in their areas to ensure the long term sustainability of the aerodrome, the safety of the aircraft operations, and the safety of persons and property. In addition to the required obstacle limitation surfaces other areas can be specifically zoned to assure that future uses of the land are compatible with airport operations and to protect persons and property. Zoning solely to obstacle limitation surface is insufficient to prevent the construction of incompatible uses such as housing or uses that attract congregations of people in the approach areas. In the United States a runway protection zone (RPZ) is used by many local authorities for the protection of people and property on the ground. Compatible land use within the RPZ is generally restricted to such land uses as agricultural, golf course, and similar uses which do not involve congregations of people or construction of buildings or other improvements that may be obstructions. Land uses prohibited from the RPZ are residences and places of public assembly including churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings and shopping centres.

June 2008 5 CAA of NZ Guidance material for land use at or near airports.

Summary Aerodromes have an important role in aviation safety in particular the safety of aircraft and passengers. In New Zealand the Civil Aviation Authority oversees aviation safety based upon international aviation requirements. It is important that persons wanting to alter land use near an aerodrome do so in consultation with the aerodrome operator, the relevant local authority and, where necessary, the Civil Aviation Authority. It is important that land use changes near aerodromes are also compliant with any Civil Aviation Rule requirements.

Contacting the CAA

The Aeronautical Services Unit of the CAA has responsibilities for the oversight of the services supporting the New Zealand aviation system. The unit is responsible for certification and surveillance of aerodromes and heliports, and air traffic, telecommunications, navigation, meteorological and aeronautical information services. The unit also has responsibilities regarding airspace and Part 77 determinations for objects affecting navigable airspace, such as structures, fireworks, unmanned balloons, kites and model aircraft. They can offer advice on matters relating to Part 139 certificated aerodromes and Part 157 aerodrome determinations. They can be contacted by phoning the CAA on 04 560 9400 or through specific contact details on the CAA web site www.caa.govt.nz

June 2008 6 CAA of NZ

ATTACHMENT D

List of Aerodromes with Part 139 Certification

Part 139 Aerodrome Certification Holders

Reference https://www.caa.govt.nz/Script/AvDocClientList.asp?Details_ID=1556

Name Address Aoraki Mount Cook Airport Ltd : Mount Cook Aoraki Mount Cook Airport Ltd PO Box 12 Aerodrome Mount Cook Village 8770 Auckland International Airport Ltd : Auckland PO Box 73020 Auckland Airport Manukau International Airport 2150 Chatham Islands Airport Limited : Chatham PO Box 65 Waitangi Chatham Islands 8942 Islands/Tuuta Airport Christchurch International Airport Ltd : PO Box 14001 Christchurch International Airport Christchurch 8544 Dunedin International Airport Ltd : Dunedin Private Bag 1922 Dunedin 9054 Aerodrome Far North Holdings Ltd : Kerikeri/Bay of PO Box 7 Opua 0241 Islands Limited : Gisborne PO Box 1048 Gisborne 4040 Hawke's Bay Airport Limited : Napier PO Box 721 Napier 4140 Airport Ltd : Hokitika PO Box 76 Hokitika 7842 Limited : Invercargill PO Box 1203 Invercargill 9840 Airport Holdings Ltd : PO Box 106249 Auckland 1010 Paraparaumu Marlborough Airport Limited : Woodbourne PO BOX 1101 BLENHEIM Blenheim 7240 Nelson Airport Ltd : Nelson PO Box 1598 Nelson 7040 Private Bag 2025 New Plymouth Central New Plymouth District Council : New Plymouth New Plymouth 4342 Airport Ltd : Palmerston PO Box 4384 Manawatu Mail Centre North Palmerston North 4442 Corporation Ltd : PO Box 64 Queenstown 9348 Queenstown Rotorua Regional Airport Ltd : Rotorua PO Box 7221 Te Ngae Rotorua 3042 Royal New Zealand Air Force (Ohakea) : Private Bag 11033 Manawatu Mail Centre Ohakea Palmerston North 4442 Authority : Taupo Airport RD 2 Taupo 3378 Authority : Tauranga Private Bag 12022 Tauranga 3143 Timaru District Council : Timaru PO Box 522 Timaru 7940 Waikato Regional Airport Ltd : Hamilton Airport Road RD 2 Hamilton 3282 PO Box 637 Wanganui Mail Centre Wanganui District Council : Wanganui Wanganui 4540 Wellington International Airport Ltd : Wellington PO Box 14175 Kilbirnie Wellington 6241 International Westport Airport Authority : Westport PO Box 21 Westport 7866 Whakatane District Council : Whakatane Private Bag 1002 Whakatane 3158 Airport : Whangarei PO Box 3226 Onerahi Whangarei 0142